Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Kishanpal & Ors on 8 August, 2008
In para 39 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
held that the motive may be considered as a
circumstance which is relevant for assessing the
evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous
and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused,
the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a
very strong one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further
held that the motive loses all its importance in a case
where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available.
Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2021
In the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. The State
of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626, it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that though in a case of direct
evidence motive would not be relevant, in a case of
circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link
to complete the chain of circumstances.
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
In the case of Vedivelu Thevar vs. The State of
Madras, 1957 AIR 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the evidence of solitary witness may also be
relied to prove the case of the prosecution. However,
the Supreme Court further held that generally the
witnesses are classified into three categories (1) wholly
reliable (ii) wholly unreliable and, (iii) neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
12. It is settled principle of law that the accused has a
right to remain silent. A person arraigned as an accused
in a case is presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty. The burden is always on the prosecution to
8
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. The burden never shifts to the defence.
However, in cases where the appellant takes a specific
defence plea like alibi or right of private defence etc.,
onus of proving the same shifts to the defence. The
burden always lies on the prosecution to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. In a case, entirely based on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to
establish all the circumstances conclusively and none of
the circumstance should be consistent with hypothesis
of the innocence of the accused. We take note of the
oft quoted judgment of the Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda
vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622, wherein five
golden principles on circumstantial evidence has been
laid down, which reads as follows:-
1