Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Kondiba Tukaram Shirke on 6 April, 1976
This principle has been affirmed by this
Court in Ediga Anamma v. State of
A.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 443 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 479]
and State of Maharashtra v. Kondiba
Tukaram Shirke [(1976) 3 SCC 775 : 1976
SCC (Cri) 514] . It is significant to observe
that A1 has subsequently sought to retract
this statement upon his arrival in Tamil
Nadu.”
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
18. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The
law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial
17
evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra2, wherein this Court held thus:
Hanumant vs The State Of Madhya ... on 23 January, 1952
It may be
useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid
down in Hanumant case [AIR 1952 SC
343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
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 [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where
the 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
19
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.”
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
J.Arul Anand Raja vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 7 November, 2019
15. The prosecution relies on the extrajudicial confession made
by the accused/appellantRam Niwas to these witnesses. This
Court in the case of S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamil Nadu1,
1 (2010) 8 SCC 233
15
after considering the earlier judgments of this Court, has
observed thus: