Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006

The burden would be comparative of a lighter character. In view of s. 106 Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish it's case lies entirely upon the prosecution to offer any explanation. [Vide Daulatram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2008 (63) ACC 121, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (57) ACC 938 (SC), Chankya Dhibar vs. State of W.B., (2004) 12 SCC 398, and State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, 2003 (47) ACC 654 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 968 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 Next