Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Karnail Singh on 14 August, 2003
14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy
of a house and in such circumstances where the
assailants have all the opportunity to plan and
commit the offence at the time and in
circumstances of their choice, it will be
extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused
if the strict principle of circumstantial
evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by
the courts. A judge does not preside over a
criminal trial merely to see that no innocent
man is punished. A judge also presides to see
that a guilty man does not escape. Both are
25
public duties. (See Stirland V. Director of
Public Prosecutions-quoted with approval by
Arijit Pasayat, J. in the State of Punjab v.
Karnail Singh.) The law does not enjoin a duty
on the prosecution to lead evidence of such
character which is almost impossible to be led
or at any rate extremely difficult to be led.
The duty on the prosecution is to lead such
evidence which it is capable of leading, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind
Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that
when any fact is especially within the knowledge
of any person, the burden of proving that fact
is upon him. Illustration (b0 appended to this
section throws some light on the content and
scope of this provision and it reads:
Sonu Son Of Sohan Lal vs State Of Maharastra 2009 (3) Rcr ... on 12 November, 2009
In the case of Ganesh Lal Vs. State of Maharastra
reported in 1992 (3) SCC 106 the apex court opined as
follows: -
State Of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram on 4 January, 2008
In the case of State of Rajasthan
vs. Jaggu Ram reported in 2008(12) SCC 51=2008 CRI. L.J.
1039 the apex Court relying upon earlier judgments
reversed the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
and held the accused guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. As to the
scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act the following
view appear from para 28:-
Durga Prasad & Anr vs State Of M.P on 14 May, 2010
Same was also the case in Durga Prasad and
8
Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1154.
M. Srinivasulu vs State Of A.P on 10 September, 2007
Same were the facts in
the 4th Case cited by Mr. Basu in the Case of M.
Srinivasulu Vs. State of A.P reported in (2008) 3 SCC
(Cri) 169.