Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.67 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006
In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681,
this Court held that when the wife is injured in the
dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides,
and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries
to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate
that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was
said: (SCC p. 694, para 22)
12
"22. Where an accused is alleged to
have committed the murder of his wife and
the prosecution succeeds in leading
evidence to show that shortly before the
commission of crime they were seen
together or the offence takes place in the
dwelling home where the husband also
normally resides, it has been consistently
held that if the accused does not offer any
explanation how the wife received injuries
or offers an explanation which is found to
be false, it is a strong circumstance which
indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime."
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000
One of the decisions
cited in Gian Chand is that of State of W.B. v. Mir
Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382, which gives a
rather telling example explaining the principle behind
Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following
words: (Mir Mohammad Omar case, SCC p. 393,
para 35)
"35. During arguments we put a question
to the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents based on a hypothetical
illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the
lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of
his people and the kidnappers disappeared
with the prey, what would be the normal
inference if the mangled dead body of the
boy is recovered within a couple of hours
from elsewhere. The query was made
whether upon proof of the above facts an
inference could be drawn that the kidnappers
would have killed the boy. The learned
Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such
a case the inference is reasonably certain that
the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless
they explain otherwise."
State Of Punjab vs Karnail Singh on 14 August, 2003
"14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of
a house and in such circumstances where the
assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit
the offence at the time and in circumstances of their
choice, it will be extremely difficult for the
prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of
the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial
evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the
courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial
merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecutions, 1944 AC 315 -
quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of
Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271.) The
law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead
evidence of such character which is almost
impossible to be led to at any rate extremely difficult
to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such
11
evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is
necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the
Evidence Act which says that when any fact is
especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration