Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Paresh Chandra Mondal & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 9 March, 2016 cites

Polamuri Chandra ... vs State Of A.P on 23 July, 2012

In the decision of Polamuri Chandra Sekhrarao @ Chinna @ Babji vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Apex Court arrived at a conclusion that the accused person was under obligation to offer explanation in support of his innocence due to discovery of the dead body of the victim from the courtyard of his house taking into consideration the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. But in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of the instant case and in particularly the reasonable doubt with regard to the ownership and possession of the residential house in question, the above decision has no manner of application in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971

The above settled proposition of law had been repeated and reiterated time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Matru @ Girish Chandra vs. State of U.P., reported in 1971 (2) SCC 75, Harish Chandra Ladaku Thange vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) 755 and recently in the matter of Kanaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014 (4) SCC 715.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 281 - I D Dua - Full Document

Kanhaiya Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 April, 2013

The above settled proposition of law had been repeated and reiterated time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Matru @ Girish Chandra vs. State of U.P., reported in 1971 (2) SCC 75, Harish Chandra Ladaku Thange vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) 755 and recently in the matter of Kanaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014 (4) SCC 715.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 174 - D Misra - Full Document

Mitter Sen And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. on 4 September, 1975

It is time tested principle of law that in a case resting squarely on the circumstantial evidence infirmities in between FIR and evidences adduced by the de facto complainant in Court raising grave doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case against the appellants, the evidence of prosecution in regard to the incident could not be accepted in its face value and the same could not be relied upon implicit for the purpose of finding the conviction of the appellants. Reference may be made to the decision of Mitter Sen & Ors. vs. State of U.P., reported in 1976 (1) SCC 723 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Sucha Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2003

According to the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The above provision was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 375. According to the observations made in the above decision, pre-condition of shifting the burden of finding explanation to the accused persons that the prosecution has been succeeded in proving the facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn in favour of commissioning of offence by the appellants. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 430 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Sk. Yusuf vs State Of West Bengal on 14 June, 2011

With regard to the contention of absconding of the appellants from the place of recovery of the dead body of the victim on the date of occurrence of the incident of his death, it was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sk. Yusuf vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754, that in a case a person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the doctrine of innocence. According to the above decision, it is quite possible that he may be running away merely on being suspected out of fear of police arrest and harassment. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 258 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 September, 2010

"31. Both the courts below have considered the circumstance of abscondence of the appellant as a circumstance on the basis of which an adverse inference could be drawn against him. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case a person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he may be running away merely on being suspected, out of fear of police arrest and harassment. (Vide Matru v. State of U.P., Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Dara Singh v. Republic of India.) Thus, in view of the law referred to hereinabove, mere abscondence of the appellant cannot taken as a circumstance which gives rise to draw an adverse inference against him."
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 295 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh vs Republic Of India on 21 January, 2011

After considering the evidences on record, we are of the opinion that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision is applicable in the instant case. That apart, appellant no.2 (in CRA 7 of 2014), amongst other accused persons, was arrested from the area near Golapganj Investigating Centre on September 15, 2012, appellant no.1 was arrested on September 20, 2012, and the appellant no.2 surrendered before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, on January 18, 2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 251 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1