Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 301 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
32. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that except for the strong
suspicion of commission of crime by the appellant, unfortunately, there is dearth of
substantive evidences to sustain the conviction based on circumstantial evidences. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, summarized the law regarding conviction based on
circumstantial evidence in paragraph 153 thereof as under:-
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully established. 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 & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(1973)2 SCC 793] where the following
observations were made: "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 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1