Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.03 seconds)
Jitender Awasthi And Anr vs Param Vir Rathee, Ips on 4 January, 2024 cites

Chaman Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 6 March, 1970

In Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1372, Supreme Court holds [15]. In order to come within the First Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be established that what has been imputed concerning the respondent is true and the publication of the imputation is for the public good. The onus of proving these two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good is on the appellant. ...
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - A N Ray - Full Document

Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 1965

In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97, a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds, [14]. It is true that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, if an accused person claims the benefit of Exceptions, the burden of proving his plea that his case falls under the Exceptions is on the accused. But the question which often arises and has been frequently considered by judicial decisions is whether the nature and extent of the onus of proof placed on an accused person who claims the benefit of an Exception is exactly the same as the nature and extent of the onus placed on the prosecution in a criminal case; and there is consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case falls under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the onus as discharged if the accused person succeeds "in proving a preponderance of probability". As soon as the preponderance of probability is proved, the burden shifts to the prosecution which has still to discharge its original onus. It must be remembered that 17 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 08-01-2024 21:52:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000318 CRM-M No. 29827 of 2018 (O&M) -18- basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. As Phipson has observed, when the burden of an issue is upon the accused, he is not, in general, called on to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty; it is sufficient if he succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability, for then the burden is shifted to the prosecution which has still to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e,, that of establishing, on the whole case, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 181 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Aroon Purie vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 October, 2022

In Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022(4) Law Herald (SC) 3177, Supreme Court holds, [18]. We now turn to the question: whether the benefit of any of the exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC can be availed of and on the strength of such exceptions, the proceedings can be quashed at the stage when an application moved under Section 482 of the Code is considered?
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1