Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.53 seconds)
State vs Salim Khan & Ors on 19 February, 2015 cites

Harishchandra Ladaku Thange vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2007

32. We have carefully examined the judgment of the trial court. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange (supra) and in the case of Ghurey Lal CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 12 of 13 (supra), we do not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the reasoning given in the impugned judgment. The prosecution has been unable to prove the circumstances, from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is to be drawn, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and the leave to appeal petition is accordingly dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 60 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Hukam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 February, 1977

(See Hukam Singh V. State CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 5 of 13 of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063), Eradu V. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 31), Earaohadrappa V. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446), State of U.P. V. Sukhbasi & Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224), Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh V. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) and Ashok Kumar Chaterjee 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 211 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Sukhbasi And Ors. on 10 May, 1985

(See Hukam Singh V. State CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 5 of 13 of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063), Eradu V. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 31), Earaohadrappa V. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446), State of U.P. V. Sukhbasi & Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224), Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh V. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) and Ashok Kumar Chaterjee 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 302 - A P Sen - Full Document

Dalbir Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1987

(See Hukam Singh V. State CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 5 of 13 of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063), Eradu V. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 31), Earaohadrappa V. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446), State of U.P. V. Sukhbasi & Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224), Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh V. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) and Ashok Kumar Chaterjee 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 42 - G L Oza - Full Document

Baskaran & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2014

In a recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Baskaran And Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported at (2014) 5 SCC 765, it has been held that if the extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can also solely form the basis of conviction. Relevant portion reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 26 - G S Misra - Full Document

Ghurey Lal vs State Of U.P on 30 July, 2008

32. We have carefully examined the judgment of the trial court. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange (supra) and in the case of Ghurey Lal CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 12 of 13 (supra), we do not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the reasoning given in the impugned judgment. The prosecution has been unable to prove the circumstances, from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is to be drawn, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and the leave to appeal petition is accordingly dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 905 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next