Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
State vs . Karan on 28 January, 2019 cites

Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 1965

In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab this Court while considering the nature and scope of onus of proof which the accused was required to discharge in seeking the protection of Exception 9 to Section 499 of the Penal Code, stated the law as under: (SCR pp. 242 H­243 A) "In other words, the onus on an accused person may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings, and just as in civil proceedings the court trying an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities, so must a criminal court hold that the plea made by the accused is proved if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 181 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 February, 1978

1992 SCC (Cri) 241 : AIR 1992 SC 840].) A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 4 SCC 161 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 564 : AIR 1978 SC 1091] .] Vague hunches cannot take the place of judicial evaluation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 214 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1