Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.51 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Anant Chintaman Lagu vs The State Of Bombay on 14 December, 1959
In Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay [AIR
1960 SC 500], where the deceased died of poison, the Court held
that there were various factors which militate against a successful
isolation of the poison and its recognition. It further noticed that while
the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy
and the chemical analysis taken by them may be most misleading.
No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such
examination. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of
42
medicine performs and the limitations under which he works, his
failure should not be taken as the end of the case, for on good and
probative circumstances an irresistible inference of guilt can be
drawn.
Dayanidhi Bisoi vs State Of Orissa on 23 July, 2003
17. Similar view was taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, [AIR 2003 SC 3915], where in a
case of circumstantial evidence the Court even confirmed the death
sentence as being rarest of rare case. The Court clearly held that it
is not a circumstance or some of the circumstances which by itself,
would assist the Court to base a conviction but all circumstances put
forth against the accused are once established beyond reasonable
doubt then conviction must follow and all the inordinate
43
circumstances would be used for collaborating the case of the
prosecution.
Sudama Pandey And Others vs State Of Bihar on 5 December, 2001
18. This Court in Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar [(2002) 1
SCC 679], has stated the principle that circumstances shall form a
chain which should point to the guilt of the accused. The evidence
led by the prosecution should prove particular facts relevant for that
purpose and such proven facts must be wholly consistent with the
guilt of the accused. Though in that case the Court, as a matter of
fact, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the chain of
circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused and gave the
benefit of doubt to the accused. This judgment cannot be of any
44
assistance to the case of the appellants. In fact, the principle of law
stated in that case has been completely satisfied in the present case.
The prosecution, in the case in hand, has been able to establish and
prove complete chain of circumstances and events, which if
collectively examined, clearly points to the guilt of the accused.