Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)

Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001

In other words, the accused is not supposed to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt under the law and if any     law   shift   the   burden   on   the   accused   to   rebut   the presumption, the extent of onus to be discharged by him, which has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banjerjee" cited as 2001(6) SCC 16 in Para 20 as follows : ­ "Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in   support   of   the   defence   that   the   Court must either  believe the defence to exist  or consider   its   existence   to   be   reasonably probable,   the   standard   or   reason   ability being that of the "prudent man".
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 3807 - R Pal - Full Document

Harchand Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 31 August, 1973

26.             The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in "AIR 1974 page 344 in case titled as "Harchand Singh and Another vs State of Haryana" in paragraph 11 as under:­ "11. The function of the court in a criminal trial is to find whether the person arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which   he   is   charged.   For   this   purpose   the Court   scans   the   material   on   record   to   find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the basis of which it is possible to found the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which he   is   charged.   If   in   a   case   the   prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradict and strikes at the other and shows it   to   be   unreliable,   the   result   would necessarily be that the court wold be left with no   reliable   and   trustworthy   evidence   upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such situation".
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 86 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1