Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.53 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kanhaiya Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 April, 2013
22. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction on the
basis of last seen evidence is unsustainable. Last seen theory requires
corroboration and the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of
being last seen with the deceased. For his aforesaid contention, learned
counsel relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal v
State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715. It was contended that
PW-2's evidence is unreliable on account of discrepancies. PW-2‟s presence
in the room is doubtful in view of his statement that he did not see Akhlak
Ahmed (PW-10) present in the room, who was cited as an eye-witness.
Bhajju @ Karan Singh vs State Of M.P on 15 March, 2012
33. Hence, going by the above decision of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court,
the most crucial witness remaining for the prosecution in this case is Phool
Singh (PW-2), the brother of the deceased, who deposed that while
searching for his brother who had left home in the morning without eating
anything, he was informed by his friend Hanif that his brother was playing
cards on the second floor of house No.F-1698. He further stated that he went
to his brother‟s room at around 10/11p.m. and found that his brother was
playing cards with Ram Avatar, Rakesh and the appellant, and also that he
did not see anybody else at that place.
Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971
38. So far as the argument of the learned APP regarding the abscondence
of the appellant is concerned, though it is a relevant circumstance under
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, but it is not conclusive of guilt by
itself. Such conduct may justifiably strengthen the chain of circumstances
against an accused only when it is viewed alongside incriminating material.
The same view has been affirmed by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Matru v. State of U.P. 1971 (2) SCC 75, wherein it was held that:
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
In view
of the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 each
circumstance must be firmly proved, must point unerringly towards the guilt
of the accused, and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence of
the accused.