Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.41 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
23. The Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra3 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
3 (1984) 4 SCC 166
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:54:55 :::
274.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt
34
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.
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980
After discussing the circumstances
brought on record and the evidence available
therein, in the case of Shankarala Gyarasilal
Dixit [supra] the Supreme Court observed that
though 12 circumstances have been relied upon
by the prosecution, the important
circumstance is that the appellant therein
was present in the house, was not proved by
the prosecution. Therefore, in the facts of
that case Supreme court held in para 26 that
the crucial link in the chain of
circumstances is the presence of the
appellant in his house at the time when the
dead body of Sunita was discovered. Once that
link snaps, the entire case would have to
rest on slender tit-bits here and there. This
discussion disposes of the second part of the
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:54:55 :::
274.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt
36
4th circumstance, part of the 5th circumstance
and circumstances (6) and (7). The Supreme
Court acquitted the appellant therein.
Indra Dalal vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2015
The Supreme Court
in the case of Indra Dalal Vs. State of
Haryana1 placing reliance on earlier
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, held
that the conviction cannot be based upon
confessional statements given by the
appellant-accused before the Police Officer
when he is in police custody.
Section 209 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1