Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Polamuri Chandra ... vs State Of A.P on 23 July, 2012
In the decision of Polamuri Chandra Sekhrarao @ Chinna @ Babji vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Apex Court arrived at a conclusion
that the accused person was under obligation to offer explanation in support
of his innocence due to discovery of the dead body of the victim from the
courtyard of his house taking into consideration the provisions of Section
106 of the Indian Evidence Act. But in view of the distinguishable facts and
circumstances of the instant case and in particularly the reasonable doubt
with regard to the ownership and possession of the residential house in
question, the above decision has no manner of application in this case.
Mitter Sen And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. on 4 September, 1975
It is time tested principle of law that in a case resting squarely on the
circumstantial evidence infirmities in between FIR and evidences adduced by
the de facto complainant in Court raising grave doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution case against the appellants, the evidence of prosecution in
regard to the incident could not be accepted in its face value and the same
could not be relied upon implicit for the purpose of finding the conviction of
the appellants. Reference may be made to the decision of Mitter Sen & Ors.
vs. State of U.P., reported in 1976 (1) SCC 723 and the relevant portion of
the above decision is quoted below:-
Sucha Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2003
According to the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,
when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. The above provision was interpreted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab,
reported in 2001 (4) SCC 375. According to the observations made in the
above decision, pre-condition of shifting the burden of finding explanation to
the accused persons that the prosecution has been succeeded in proving the
facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn in favour of
commissioning of offence by the appellants. The relevant portion of the
above decision is quoted below:-
Sk. Yusuf vs State Of West Bengal on 14 June, 2011
With regard to the contention of absconding of the appellants from the
place of recovery of the dead body of the victim on the date of occurrence of
the incident of his death, it was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Sk. Yusuf vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 11 SCC
754, that in a case a person is absconding after commission of offence of
which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be
enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the
doctrine of innocence. According to the above decision, it is quite possible
that he may be running away merely on being suspected out of fear of police
arrest and harassment. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted
below:-
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 September, 2010
"31. Both the courts below have considered the circumstance of
abscondence of the appellant as a circumstance on the basis of which an
adverse inference could be drawn against him. It is a settled legal
proposition that in a case a person is absconding after commission of
offence of which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance
alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it
would go against the doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he
may be running away merely on being suspected, out of fear of police
arrest and harassment. (Vide Matru v. State of U.P., Paramjeet Singh v.
State of Uttarakhand and Dara Singh v. Republic of India.) Thus, in view
of the law referred to hereinabove, mere abscondence of the appellant
cannot taken as a circumstance which gives rise to draw an adverse
inference against him."
Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh vs Republic Of India on 21 January, 2011
After considering the evidences on record, we are of the opinion that
the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision is
applicable in the instant case. That apart, appellant no.2 (in CRA 7 of 2014),
amongst other accused persons, was arrested from the area near Golapganj
Investigating Centre on September 15, 2012, appellant no.1 was arrested on
September 20, 2012, and the appellant no.2 surrendered before the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, on January 18, 2013.