Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.35 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002
35. Thus, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath v. State of
Haryana (supra) and Kansa Behera (supra), this Court is of
the opinion that the circumstantial evidence alone was not
sufficient, but the learned Sessions Court was required to also
appreciate that whether there was a common intention between
the accused persons to have committed such act especially
when PW2 Anisa Begum has categorically deposed that there
was no rivalry between the deceased and the present
appellants. In fact, Ruda was related to the deceased. Thus, so
as to prove a circumstantial evidence, well settled law is that for
conviction on circumstantial evidence, the following conditions
18
Cri.As. No.285/2007 & 478/2007
must be fulfilled :-