Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
52. Further circumstantial evidence relied upon
by the prosecution that accused alone had committed
the crime since he had not explained the injuries found
on the body of the deceased, is without any basis, since
it is not for the accused to prove his defence and
accused is not required to offer any explanation in that
regard. It is for the prosecution to prove the charge
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and
55
the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
would indicate the cardinal principles regarding the
appreciation of circumstantial evidence having been
postulated, whenever the case is based on
circumstantial evidence following features are required
to be complied with as indicated by Hon'ble Apex Court
and the salient features are:
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned 'must or
should' andnot 'may be' established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should
56
be proved' as was held by this Courtin Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra where the following observations
were made:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rukia Begum vs State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2011
(ii) accused failing to explain the injuries sustained by
the deceased Ms. Rizwana; and (iii) the deceased and
the accused were residing in the same premises at the
time of the incident. When prosecution bases its case
on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, are to
be cogently and firmly established. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rukia Begum vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2011) 4 SCC 779 has held to the
following effect:
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
However, such disclosure alone would not
automatically lead to the conclusion that offence is
42
committed by the accused. In fact, on such disclosure,
burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link
between discovery of the material objection and its use
in commission of the offence. What is admissible under
Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to
discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the
prosecution. The scope and ambit of Section 27 has
been authoritatively stated by Privy Council in Pulukuri
Kotayya vs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1947 Privy
Council 67 and same is re-produced herein below:
1