Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
13] Thus except the presence of the appellant at the site of the
incident, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of
the appellant have not been fully established. As held by the Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4
Supreme Court Cases 116, in paragraphs 153 and 154:
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
Apeal no.549.10
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and
not 'may be' established. There is n ot 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 following
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807 :
SCC(Cri) p. 1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1