Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.93 seconds)
Abdul Hannal Abdul Karim Vora vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 26 July, 2007 cites

Upendra Kumar vs The Bihar State Financial Corporation ... on 21 July, 2006

19. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 1998 stands dismissed to the extent that conviction is upheld. So far as sentence part is concerned, the accused is referred to the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for decision in accordance with law on sentence in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 3 SCC 592. It is expected that the Juvenile Justice Board will treat this matter on a priority basis keeping in light the fact that the accused is in jail for nearly ten years.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - V N Sinha - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Babu Ram on 11 April, 2000

In this regard, we may refer to the decision in the case of State of UP v. Babu Ram AIR 2000 SC 1735 wherein it has been held that motive factor cannot weaken the prosecution case which is based on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships observed that 'Smotive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on testimony of the eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence. The question in this regard is whether a prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution case to any perceptible limit. No doubt, if the prosecution proves the existence of a motive, it would be well and good for it, particularly, in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, for, such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it cannot be forgotten that it is generally difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the respondent. Even if the Investigating Officer would have succeeded in knowing it through interrogations that cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by law.' 17.5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 42 - K T Thomas - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Bhikhabhai Kalaji Thakore on 13 March, 2001

We may refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Satish @ Kalu Hathoda Bhikhabhai Patel where a view is taken that absence of motive for crime would not be fatal to the prosecution case. In the case on hand, we find out that motive is not established properly by adducing legally acceptable evidence. But that is only one stage when we find as the deceased and accused were seen together within proximity of time of death, we find that the accused Page 1172 was seen trying to cover up the grave pit by putting soil in an unused grave yard, we are of the view that the nexus is properly established between the accused and the offence. The trial Court was justified in recording the conviction of the accused. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction part.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - S K Keshote - Full Document
1