Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dharam Deo Yadav vs State Of U.P on 11 April, 2014
13. Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP (2014) 5 SCC
509
"15. We have no eye-witness version in the instant case
and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial
evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of
relevant facts from which, one can, by process of
reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or
factum probandum.
Jamnadas vs State Of M.P on 29 June, 2016
Following the decision of Apex Court rendered in the
matter of Kuldeep Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan,
(2000) 5 SCC 7 it has been held in the matter of
Jamnadas v. State of MP (supra) that in a case of
circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an
explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue,
then the same offers an additional link in the chain of
circumstances, to complete the chain.
State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram on 7 November, 2006
11. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh on 10 December, 1999
Of late, Courts
have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false
answers given to Court, when questioned, found the
missing links to be supplied by such answers for
completing the chain of incriminating circumstances
necessary to connect the person concerned with the
crime committed (see State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh -
2000(1) SCC 471). That missing link to connect the
appellant-accused, we find in this case provided by the
blunt and outright denial of every one and all the
incriminating circumstances pointed out which, in our
view, with sufficient and reasonable certainty on the
facts proved, connect the accused with the death and the
cause for the death of Gracy. For all the reasons stated
supra, we have no hesitation to agree with the
findings of the Division Bench of the High Court holding
the appellant guilty of offences under Section 302 for
committing the murder of Gracy and for robbing her of her
jewellery worn by her - MOs 1 to 3, under Section 392.
The deceased meekly went with the accused from the
Convent on account of the misrepresentation made that
her mother was seriously ill and hospitalised apparently
reposing faith and confidence in him in view of his close
relationship - being the husband of her own sister, but
the appellant seems to have not only betrayed the
confidence reposed in him but also took advantage of
12
the loneliness of the hapless women. The quantum of
punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of
the charges held proved and calls for no interference in
our hands, despite the fact that we are not agreeing with
the High Court in respect of the findings relating to the
charge under Section 376."
Rambraksh @ Jalim vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2016
(v) Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the
matters of Bodh Raj alias Bodha and others v. State of Jammu
and Kashmir 2002 Cr.L.J 4664; Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State
of Chhattisgarh (2016 Cr.L.R SC 503 & Kanhaiya Lal v. State
of Rajsthan {2014 (suppl.) Cr.L.R. SC 744}
Bodh Raj @ Bodha And Ors vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 3 September, 2002
(v) Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the
matters of Bodh Raj alias Bodha and others v. State of Jammu
and Kashmir 2002 Cr.L.J 4664; Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State
of Chhattisgarh (2016 Cr.L.R SC 503 & Kanhaiya Lal v. State
of Rajsthan {2014 (suppl.) Cr.L.R. SC 744}
Subramaniam Alias Ramasamy, Mahadevan ... vs State, Rep. By Station House Officer on 12 July, 2004
19. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be
recorded against the accused merely on the ground that
the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other
words, a conviction cannot be based on the only
circumstance of last seen together. The conduct of the
accused and the fact of last seen together plus other
circumstances have to be looked into. Normally, last
seen theory comes into play when the time gap, between
the point of time when the accused and the deceased
were seen last alive and when the deceased is found
dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than
the accused being the perpetrator of the crime
becomes impossible. It will be difficult in some cases to
positively establish that the deceased was last seen with
the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of
other persons coming in between exists. However, if the
prosecution, on the basis of reliable evidence,
establishes that the missing person was seen in the
company of the accused and was never seen
thereafter, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to
explain the circumstances in which the missing person
and the accused parted company. Reference may be
made to the judgment of this Court in Sahadevan Alias
Sagadeven v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
Chennai (2003) 1 SCC 534. In such a situation, the
proximity of time between the event of last seen
together and the recovery of the dead body or the
skeleton, as the case may be, may not be of much
consequence. PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 have all
14
deposed that the accused was last seen with Diana.
But, as already indicated, to record a conviction, that
itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to
complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the
guilt of the accused."