Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.42 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shambu Nath Mehra vs The State Of Ajmer on 12 March, 1956
16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of
Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199 this Court dealt with the interpretation
of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section
is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a
crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a
fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh
impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove
that fact. It was said:
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not
"may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:36:25 :::HCHP
36
following observations were made : [SCC para 19,p.807 :
Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 September, 2012
As to when and why the deceased left the house and how she died
in suspicious circumstances was within the special knowledge of
the appellant. When the prosecution established facts from which
reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed
suicide, the appellant should have, by virtue of his special
knowledge regarding those facts, offered an explanation which
might drive the court to draw a different inference. The burden of
proving those facts was on the appellant as per Section 106 of the
Evidence Act but the appellant has not discharged the same
leading to an adverse inference being drawn against him
(See: Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra[9] and Babu alias Balasubramaniam)."
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 West Bengal 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:
Vilas Pandurang Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2004
55. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vilas
Pandurang Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 158 have held that Circumstantial evidence is not direct to the
point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are
so closely associated with the fact in issue, which taken together form a
chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:36:25 :::HCHP
33
can be legally inferred or presumed. It is not necessary that the crime
must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances,
be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court
.
Gagan Kanojia & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 24 November, 2006
56. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gagan
Kanojia and another Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 13 Supreme Court
Cases 516 have held that the Court should use the yardstick of
probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought
on record and analyse and assess the same objectively. Their Lordships
have held as under:
Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007
57. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Ujjagar
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 90 have
held that while evaluating circumstantial evidence, whether a chain of
evidence is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case
emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be
attempted. Their Lordships have held as under:
Mahmood vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 1975
In Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542 it
has been observed that in a case dependent wholly on
circumstantial evidence the court must be satisfied