Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Toran Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2002
16. Therefore, taking over all view of the
matter, it clearly reveals that there is no chain
of circumstance so as to sustain the conviction of
the respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Toran Singh Vs. State of M.P. 8 held that
the case of the prosecution should rest on its own
7 (2012) 4 SCC 37
8 AIR 2002 SC 2807
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 01:01:12 :::
471.99appeal
44
strength and not on the basis of absence of
explanation or plausible defence by the accused.
In the case of State of Punjab V/s Bhajan Singh
and others9, the Supreme Court held that,
suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is
not sufficient to take the place of proof and
warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.
Another weakness of the prosecution case is that
as many as four persons have been involved in this
case. The Apex Court has observed that, even if
it may be assumed that the dead bodies which were
recovered from the place in front of the house of
the accused were those of Harbans Singh and Bachan
Singh deceased and that their death was homicidal,
it is difficult to say whether the dastardly crime
was the act of one or two culprits or of a larger
number of them. In any case it is difficult to
fix their identity. The Supreme Court, in case of
Kali Ram V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh10 observed
as under :
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
13. The entire case is based upon the
circumstantial evidence and the evidence brought
on record by the prosecution is not cogent,
sufficient and convincing so as to prove the
offence against the respondent beyond reasonable
doubt. The Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 01:01:12 :::
471.99appeal
41
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra5 has
held that, the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own legs and it cannot derive any strength
from the weakness of the defence. It is not the
law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in
the prosecution case, the same could be cured or
supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not
accepted by a Court. It is also to be borne in
mind that the case in hand is a case of
circumstantial evidence and if two views are
possible on the evidence on record, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and other his
innocence, the accused is entitled to have the
benefit of one which is favourable to him.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs The State Of Mahrashtra on 29 February, 2012
In the case of Rajendra Wasnik Vs. State
of Maharashtra7, the Supreme Court held that, to
sustain conviction founded on circumstantial
evidence, circumstances forming chain of events
should be proved which should cumulatively and
unequivocally point towards guilt of accused and
be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt
of any other person.
1