Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.36 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
State Of A.P.Thr.I.G.National ... vs Md.Hussain @ Saleem on 13 September, 2013
State vs Salim Hussain-SC 61/2012 35/56
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh on 10 December, 1999
In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is
available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The
principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the
said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found
to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of
decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
(para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40);
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State
of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P.
(1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]. 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 placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, 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. There is an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death
in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P. C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled
with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence
of the accused."
Ganesh Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 October, 2001
In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is
available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The
principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the
said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found
to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of
decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
(para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40);
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State
of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P.
(1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]. 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 placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, 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. There is an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death
in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P. C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled
with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence
of the accused."