Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Hari Kishan And Anr. vs The State Of Haryana on 10 August, 1989
23. It is, however, true that an extra-judicial confession is usually looked upon as a weak type of evidence. It has been held in Hari Kishan and another v. State of Haryana reported in 1990 Cri LJ 385 that an extra-judicial confession is usually looked upon as a weak type of evidence and therefore, whenever it is sought to be relied upon, the burden lies upon the prosecution to show its trustworthiness. It has been further held that in order to render such confession worthy of belief, regard must be had to:--
State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984
In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony , it has been laid down by the Apex Court that an extra-judicial confession can be accepted and form the basis of confession If--
State Of Sikkim vs Milan Kumar Diyali And Anr. on 9 August, 2005
29. We may in this regard also refer to another recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in State of Sikkim v. Milan Kumar Diyali and Anr. decided on 9th August, 2005.
Sahadevan @ Sagadevan vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ... on 1 November, 2002
The Division Bench relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sahadevan @ Sagadevan v. State represented by Inspector of Police Chennai has held that, once the fact of last seen together is proved, a duty is cast on the accused to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. As already noted above the circumstances of last seen together stands established on the basis of the relevant materials on record in the present case. The circumstance of last seen together having thus been established, it was obligatory on the part of the accused, as per the above principle of law, to explain the circumstances in which he parted company with his father, the deceased. However, it is pertinent to note that the accused-appellant miserably failed to discharge his duty when such opportunity was given to him in his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In his answer to all the relevant questions put to him, the accused-appellant has replied saying "It is false". This shows that the accused-appellant has but failed to satisfactorily explain the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased. Such failure on the part of the accused-appellant, according to the above decision, has to be taken as supplying missing link in the chain of circumstances. Even though, there is no missing link in the chain of circumstances in the present case, the above failure of the accused-appellant to explain the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased may well serve as additional link in the chain of circumstances thereby fortifying the prosecution case.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surendra Singh Alias Babloo And Etc. vs State Of Uttaranchal on 24 August, 2004
In support of this submission, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala Bansidhar Nandi v. State of Orissa reported in 1992 Cri LJ 3927 and Surendra Singh alias Babloo and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2004 Cri LJ 4503. We have perused these decisions. However, we find that these decisions do not lay down that reproduction of exact words spoken to by the accused is a must in all circumstances. Indeed, there is no invariable rule that the Court should not accept a testimony which does not give the actual words, but only the substance of the confession. It has been held in a number of decisions that in extra judicial confession it is not always essential to reproduce and prove the exact words used by the accused.
State Of Orissa vs Machindra Majhi And Anr. on 4 December, 1963
Relying on the above decision of the Apex Court the High Court of Orissa in State of Orissa v. Machindra Majhi and Anr. has also held that it is not an invariable rule that the evidence regarding extra-judicial confession is not acceptable unless the actual words used are given. It is always a question of fact to be determined in each case if such evidence is acceptable or not. It is, therefore, not always necessary to reproduce and prove the exact words used by the accused. Proof of the substance of the words used by accused should be taken as enough if the evidence is found reliable.
Sonam Zangpo Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 21 March, 2005
28. It is thus clear that the circumstances relied on by the learned trial Court while convicting and passing the order of sentence, stands established by the evidence on record. A Division Bench of this Court relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions has held in Sonam Zangpo Bhutia v. State of Sikkim reported in 2005 Cri LJ 1937 that the proved circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. In other words, it must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. On examination of the materials on record, in the present case, in the light of the above principle of law, we find no reason to doubt that the circumstances established in the case unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.
1