Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 164 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 157 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
23. While making the aforesaid observations, this Court also
referred to its earlier judgment of the three-judge Bench in
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra", which
considered the fallout of the omission to put to the Accused a
question on a vital circumstance appearing against him in the
prosecution evidence, and the requirement that the Accused's
attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as
to enable him to explain it. Ordinarily, in such a situation,
such material as not put to the Accused must be eschewed.
No doubt, it is recognized, that where there is a perfunctory
examination under Section 313 CrPC, the matter is capable of
being remitted to the trial court, with the direction to retry
from the stage at which the prosecution was closed.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
19. We have heard the respective Advocates and perused the record
and proceedings of the trial court. Admittedly, this is a case based on
circumstantial evidence, it is therefore necessary for the prosecution to
prove the chain of events, which would lead to the guilt of none other
than the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The question that arises is
who is the author of the crime. The present case is based on
circumstantial evidence, which requires evidence of impeccable quality
for recording conviction. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharashtra1, has set
the standards and guiding principles for proving cases based on
circumstantial evidence. The relevant para is reproduced herein below
which reads thus:
Samsul Haque vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2019
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Samsul Haque Vs. The
State of Assam3 while deciding a similar issue, on the omission by the
prosecution, to question the Accused about the inculpatory piece of
evidence produced against him has made following observations :
S. Harnam Singh vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 23 March, 1976
3.(2019) 18 SCC 161
Page 17 of 24
Sneha Bang
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:35:05 :::
01-Cr.A.-610-2021(2).doc
about the matter and be given an opportunity of
explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by
the trial court on an inculpatory material in the
prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of
course, all these are subject to rider whether they have
caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court
also expressed a similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. State
(Delhi Admn.) while dealing with Section 342 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to
Section 313 of the Code). Non-indication of inculpatory
material in its relevant facets by the trial court to the
Accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case.
Recording of a statement of the Accused under Section
313 is not a purposeless exercise."