Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
CRL.A(J)/32/2023 on 19 May, 2026 cites

Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958

The Division Bench also further held that the decision in Virsa Singh case [Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] has throughout been followed as laying down the guiding principles. In both these cases it is clearly laid down that the prosecution must prove [1] that the body injury is present, [2] that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, [3] that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury, that is to say it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. In other words clause Thirdly consists of two parts. The first part is that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present and the second part that the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Under the first part the prosecution has to prove from the given facts and circumstances that the intention of the accused was to cause that particular injury. Whereas under the second part whether it was sufficient to cause death, is an objective enquiry and it is a matter of inference or deduction from the particulars of the injury. The language of clause Thirdly Page No. 22/27 of Section 300 speaks of intention at two places and in each the sequence is to be established by the prosecution before the case can fall in that clause. The 'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the weapon used, the ferocity of attack, multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the Code designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely, the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 663 - Full Document

Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 July, 2022

In Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, [2022] 12 SCR 196, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in assessing the value of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the place of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity Page No. 15/27 of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 68 - S Kant - Full Document

Krishna Mochi & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2002

26. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye-witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. It has been held in Krishna Mochi and others vs. State of Bihar, [2002] 6 SCC 81, that the recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot alone be taken as a ground to exonerate the accused from the charges, more so, when participation of the accused in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence, by the witnesses, whose evidence has been found to be unimpeachable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 689 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957

In Vadivelu Thevar [supra], the Hon'ble Court has observed that in the first category of proof, that is, of wholly reliable witness, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. Thus, absence or presence of motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased is hardly of any significance in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 969 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1