Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.59 seconds)
Mahesh Kumar vs State on 2 February, 2023 cites

Ram Udgar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 November, 2003

16.6. Further, in Ram Udgar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2004 (10), SCC, 443, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para 10 observed that „So far as the plea relating to the time of death on the basis of medical evidence is concerned, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Page 20 of 26 Signing Date:03.02.2023 12:24:01 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000754 emphasis is laid on the fact that rigor mortis could not have set in, in the dead body within two hours. The High Court has referred to several treatises on medical jurisprudence to conclude that the time which is usually three to four hours may vary according to climatic conditions. We find no infirmity in the conclusion.‟ 16.7. Thus, the deceased Sunil is likely to have died somewhere between 9 pm to 12 am on 10.04.2015. In view of these facts, it was for the prosecution to prove that the appellants/accused persons were seen with the deceased, prior to his death around that time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 28 November, 2013

15.0. However, chinks in the defence of the accused and mere suspicion cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused. Prosecution has to stand on its own legs. Present case being based on circumstantial evidence, let us examine whether the prosecution has been able to place on record definite evidence to connect the appellants/accused persons with the crime. It would be worthwhile to refer here to the judgment in case titled Madhu alias Madhuranatha and Another vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 419, wherein Hon‟ble Apex Court in para 13 observed as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 72 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

"This Court has dealt with the case of circumstantial evidence time and again. It has consistently been held that a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Page 17 of 26 Signing Date:03.02.2023 12:24:01 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000754 cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are complete in themselves. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable or point to any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The evidence produced by the prosecution should be of such a nature that it makes the conviction of the accused sustainable. (Vide: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000; and Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document
1   2 Next