Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another vs Syed Naseem Zahir And Others on 13 October, 1992

(iii)   In   case   law   reported   as  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.   State   of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had State Vs. Naseem; FIR No. 91/17; PS RN 5/6 observed as under:­ "5.   In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to   establish   its   case   beyond   all   reasonable doubts.   It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 112 - K Singh - Full Document

Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984

(iii)   In   case   law   reported   as  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.   State   of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had State Vs. Naseem; FIR No. 91/17; PS RN 5/6 observed as under:­ "5.   In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to   establish   its   case   beyond   all   reasonable doubts.   It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 3880 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document
1