Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.08 seconds)
Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026 cites

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

29) Having meticulously examined each circumstance individually and collectively, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that points irresistibly to the guilt of the appellant. The circumstances proved on record satisfy all the five essential principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). The 6 (1992) 3 SCC 43 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 482 : 1992 SCC OnLine SC 378 at page 53 Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 17 of 18 deceased went missing on 25.07.2009; ransom calls were made from her mobile phone demanding Rs. 5 lakh; the appellant came into possession of the deceased's mobile phone and sold it; the dead body was recovered from a well at the specific disclosure of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; the body was identified as that of the deceased; the deceased's Scooty was recovered at the appellant's disclosure; and the medical evidence established that the death was homicidal in nature. These circumstances, when viewed cumulatively, form a complete chain. No other reasonable conclusion is possible except for the inference that the appellant committed the murder of Archana @ Pinki. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and have correctly determined the culpability of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
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 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 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.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1846 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Delhi Administration vs Bal Krishan And Ors. on 15 October, 1971

“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.— Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” The scope and ambit of Section 27 have been examined by this Court in Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan and Others2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 24 - D G Palekar - Full Document
1   2 Next