Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
State Of Rajasthan vs Mahavir @ Mahavir Prasad on 29 July, 1998
We are unable to accept the submission of the learned A.P.P. In the present case in the absence of any evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the presence of the accused even in the village on the said day, the question of offering explanation by the accused does not arise. It is a well settled principle in criminal law that the case of the prosecution must be established on its own merits and not on the weakness of the defence. Unfortunately, in this case, much to our dismay we find that there is an absolute apathy shown by the prosecution and by the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation and as a result there is no evidence before us on the basis of which we can come to the conclusion that the accused alone is responsible for having committed offence of murder of deceased Nirmala. Mrs. Dangre, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mahavir (supra), and submitted that the Apex Court had held that in a case where the accused had taken a plea of alibi and had not proved his case of alibi then in such a case it would be an additional circumstance which can be used against him for holding that he is responsible for having committed the said offence.
Shunmugasundaram vs State By Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 20 February, 1996
Under the normal circumstance, if the prosecution had proved the fact of the presence of the accused in the village or in the house where the offence was committed then under such circumstances an inference could be drawn from the false statement which is made by the accused in his statement Under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. However, in this case, the prosecution not having proved that the accused was present in the house or in the village at the time when offence was committed, such an adverse inference cannot be drawn from the statement made in his statement Under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Mrs. Dangre, learned A.P.P. further relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Shunmugasundaram v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode Town (supra), and submitted that in the said case the Madras High Court had held that once the motive of dowry was proved and it was also proved that the death was caused due to manual strangulation which was proved by the medical evidence, coupled with the fact that the accused and deceased were present alone in their house at the time of incident, such evidence would be sufficient for convicting the accused Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The said judgment, in our view, will not be of any assistance to the prosecution in this case because the prosecution has not at all adduced any evidence to show the presence of the accused either in the house or even in the village. We would like to note here that if such a evidence had been adduced by the prosecution then this Court would undoubtedly have confirmed the order of the Sessions Court. However in the absence of this crucial evidence, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused. The accused was arrested on 19.11.1994 and is in jail since then. He was neither released on bail by the Trial Court during the pendency of the trial nor he was released during the pendency of the appeal in this Court.
Vishwa Nath vs State Of Haryana on 7 February, 1998
20. Mrs. Dangre, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State relied upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vishwa Nath v. State of Haryana (supra), and submitted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in the said case that since the accused had not satisfactorily explained certain facts which were within his own knowledge and had, in fact, disbelieved whatever explanation which was given by the accused and had dismissed the appeal.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 28 August, 1991
"However, in Soni Devrabhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, 1991 ACC 573 : (1991) Cri. LJ 3135, on which Mr. P.N. Misra learned Counsel for the appellants had placed reliance, there is an important observation in paragraph 4 which may be quoted in verbatim (at page 3136; of Cri. LJ) :