Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Hanumant vs The State Of Madhya ... on 23 January, 1952
49. Applying the principle laid down in the judgment in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC
1622(Supra), and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091=AIR
1952 SC 343(Supra), I am of the considered view, that it has been
proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution, by
unimpeachable evidence by aforesaid chain of circumstances as
discussed above, which is so complete, which only leads to the
conclusion, that it was only the accused who had committed the
murder of deceased Pushpa and no one else and the circumstantial
evidence lead on the record, is absolutely inconsistent and
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and there is no
circumstance brought on record by the accused suggesting his
St. Vs. Rabinder Mishra FIR No. 145/04 P.S. Tilak Nagar
41
innocence or the possibility that any one else might have committed
the aforesaid ghastly act. Therefore, the circumstance(s) proved by
the prosecution form a chain so complete which leads only to the
conclusion, regarding the culpability of the accused Rabinder
Mishra regarding the murder of the deceased Pushpa.
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
49. Applying the principle laid down in the judgment in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC
1622(Supra), and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091=AIR
1952 SC 343(Supra), I am of the considered view, that it has been
proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution, by
unimpeachable evidence by aforesaid chain of circumstances as
discussed above, which is so complete, which only leads to the
conclusion, that it was only the accused who had committed the
murder of deceased Pushpa and no one else and the circumstantial
evidence lead on the record, is absolutely inconsistent and
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and there is no
circumstance brought on record by the accused suggesting his
St. Vs. Rabinder Mishra FIR No. 145/04 P.S. Tilak Nagar
41
innocence or the possibility that any one else might have committed
the aforesaid ghastly act. Therefore, the circumstance(s) proved by
the prosecution form a chain so complete which leads only to the
conclusion, regarding the culpability of the accused Rabinder
Mishra regarding the murder of the deceased Pushpa.
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000
27. It has been held in judgment State v. Mir Mohammad Omar
(2000) 8 SCC 382 that " The section is not intended to relieve
the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to
cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts
from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the
existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue
of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer
any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different
inference."
Sucha Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2001
28. It has also been held in judgment Sucha Singh v. State
(2001)4 SCC 375 that " the Section would apply to cases where
the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which
reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of
St. Vs. Rabinder Mishra FIR No. 145/04 P.S. Tilak Nagar
23
certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special
knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer an explanation
which might drive the court to draw a difference inference."
1