Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (3.05 seconds)Sk. Yusuf vs State Of West Bengal on 14 June, 2011
27. The fact that the appellant
absconded from the spot itself cannot be
incriminating circumstance inasmuch as he has
offered explanation that out of fear he ran
away from the spot. The Supreme Court in the
case of Sk.Yusuf v. State of W.B.1 held that
it is well settled that absconding by itself
does not prove the guilt of a person. A
person may run away due to fear of false
implication or arrest.
Toran Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2002
29. Therefore, in the light of the
discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, it
will have to be held that the prosecution has
not proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the
appellant gave electric shock to Ashabai and
he was responsible for the death of Ashabai.
Therefore, taking over all view of the
matter, it clearly reveals that there is no
chain of circumstance proved by the
prosecution so as to sustain the conviction
of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Toran Singh Vs. State of M.P.2
held that the case of the prosecution should
rest on its own strength and not on the basis
of absence of explanation or plausible
defence by the accused. In the case of State
of Punjab V/s Bhajan Singh and others3, the
2 AIR 2002 SC 2807
3 AIR 1975 SC 258
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 00:31:04 :::
94.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt
46
Supreme Court held that, suspicion, by
itself, however strong it may be, is not
sufficient to take the place of proof and
warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.
The Supreme Court, in case of Kali Ram V/s.
State of Himachal Pradesh4 observed as
under :
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1