Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Chandin vs State on 7 July, 2011 cites

Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 May, 1962

15.The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under sec.201 IPC. In order to establish the charge under sec.201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed and mere suspicion that it has been committed, is not sufficient. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 74 held that mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the removal of the dead bodies did not bring the case within the ambit of sec.201 IPC and that Section's essential requirement is causing any evidence of commission of an offence to disappear. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that unless the prosecution could establish that the accused had caused any evidence to disappear, the charge under sec.201 IPC would not be sustainable. The proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court was that strongest suspicion against an accused person will not amount to legal proof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 103 - R Dayal - Full Document
1