Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.50 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
In Gopal Krishnaji
Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, reported in 1968 SCC OnLine
SC 63, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the best
evidence is withheld, an adverse inference under Section
114(g) of the Evidence Act is permissible. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgement has
observed as hereunder:
Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 1915
"5. To say the least, the
approach of the High Court is totally
fallacious. In an appeal against
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.684 of 2018 dt.27-02-2026
27/29
conviction, the appellate court has the
duty to itself appreciate the evidence on
the record and if two views are possible
on the appraisal of the evidence, the
benefit of reasonable doubt has to be
given to an accused. It is not correct to
suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot
legally interfere with" the order of
conviction where the trial court has found
the evidence as reliable and that it cannot
substitute the findings of the Sessions
Judge by its own, if it arrives at a
different conclusion on reassessment of
the evidence. The observation made in
Tota Singh case [(1987) 2 SCC 529 :
Surendra Koli vs State Of U.P. Ors on 15 February, 2011
In Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in 2025 INSC 1308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated that medical evidence can prove the nature of
injuries but cannot prove the authorship of the crime in the
absence of reliable ocular or forensic link. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
Shivasharanappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 7 May, 2013
In Shivasharanappa & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that unnatural conduct of witnesses
creates serious doubt on their presence and reliability. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:
Pankaj vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 September, 2016
In Pankaj v.
State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 192, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the genesis and
manner of the incident itself are doubtful, conviction cannot
be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 25
of the aforesaid judgement has held as under: