Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Md.Nisar Alam & Ors on 11 April, 2012

All these witnesses were cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State. They denied all the suggestions put to them by the Learned Addl. PP. PW­3 stated that he put his signature on his statement on the direction of the police and the same was not read State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. ­ SC No. 28 of 2011 14/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 over to him. Other circumstance alleged is recovery of knife from accused Pradeep and one bag, allegedly hanging on the shoulder of accused Parvez Alam having clothes, Novel and Rs.200/­. As regards recovery of the knife, two witnesses have been examined by prosecution namely Constable Kunal Sharma (PW­16) & Constable Rajender Singh (PW­20). PW­16 during the cross examination deposed that public persons were present at the place, where secret informer had met them. At the time, when accused persons were apprehended, there was no scuffle and the accused persons did not attempted to flee away on seeing the police party. PW­16 deposed that the knife, which was allegedly recovered was not used by the accused persons. PW­20 admitted that IO did not call the officials from the Airforce, which was at a distance of 100 meters. PW­20 deposed that site plan was prepared at the place, where both the accused persons were apprehended, but when he was asked to show the site plan. After seeing the record, he deposed that there was no such site plan on record. PW­20 testified that the alleged recovery was effected before recording of disclosure statement of both accused persons and no crime team was called at the spot to lift the finger prints from the alleged recovered knife.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - T M Kumari - Full Document

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

28. It may be noted that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion howsoever strong, it may be, cannot take the place of proof. "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622)", while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. ­ SC No. 28 of 2011 12/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The following conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document
1