Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 202 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989
In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
following tests:
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ
1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour
of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that
the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been
fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in
prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The
14
conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be
fully established. They are:
State Of Haryana vs Jagbir Singh And Anr on 26 September, 2003
16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v.
Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh
and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261) and Kusuma Ankama Rao v
15
State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on
7.7.2008).
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 1989
350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC
1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the
guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from
those circumstances.