Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Prahlad vs State on 27 May, 2013 cites

Jagroop Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 2012

But then, there is the other aspect of law to be kept in view while considering statement of the accused during his/her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reference in this connection be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 768, in which it was held that if incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial, this can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 85 - D Misra - Full Document

Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ M.Upadhyaya vs State Of A.P.Tr.Pub.Prosecutor on 8 May, 2012

Similarly in Munna Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174, the Supreme Court held that examination of accused on such incriminating circumstances appearing against him serves twin purpose of accused. First purpose is to provide opportunity to accused to furnishing explanation on the circumstances appearing against him. If the accused denies the established facts, the court would then will be entitled to draw adverse inference against him. Secondly, if the accused remains silent to such circumstances or furnish false explanation when such circumstances are put to him, the conduct of the accused would entitle the court to tilt the case in favour of the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 111 - S Kumar - Full Document
1