Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Deenaram And Ors vs State Of C.G. 28 Cra/873/2016 Shivkumar ... on 20 June, 2018 cites

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

12. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Nathiya (supra), we shall now proceed to analyse the evidence available on record to ascertain as to whether the evidence of seizure of articles is so clinching that the appellants' conviction can rest on the sole evidence of seizure of articles. The most crucial evidence is seizure of one torch from accused Deenaram, which was recovered from the well situated in the kitchen garden of one Devnarayan. In the description of article mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.P/22, it is mentioned that one torch fitted with rechargeable battery has been recovered, however, witness to the seizure memo PW-9 Paltan Singh has stated that the torch recovered from the well was not complete as it was not having the battery, which was separately recovered meaning thereby that at the time of seizure, battery was not fitted in the torch. Similarly, the torch was not having the glass but there is no 6 mention of this crucial aspect in the seizure memo.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document

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 Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1846 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1