Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Section 3 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 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 1961
63. To avoid repetition it can here be mentioned that
the law with regard to the discharge of burden of proof
by the prosecution, or by the defence against whom a
presumption can be drawn under Section 105 of the
Evidence Act, is as detailed in K.M. Nanavati vs.
State of Maharashtra10, and whether the accused
has been able to discharge the burden of proof is to be
judged on the basis of the "test oil probabilities" or the
10
AIR 1962 SC 605
19
"preponderance of probabilities" in the same manner as
the Court records a finding in a civil proceeding. This
rule applies to the accused. A more rigorous proof is
called for from the prosecution which must establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
V.K.Mishra & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 28 July, 2015
"15. Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure bars use
of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except
for the limited purpose of contradiction of such
witnesses as indicated there. The statement made by a
witness before the police Under Section 161(1) Code of
Criminal Procedure can be used only for the purpose of
contradicting such witness on what he has stated at
the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 161(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Rishi Kesh Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 14 July, 2017
The doctrine of preponderance of the probability was discussed
in the case of Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State9: