Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006
31. We may also note that there is also no evidence that the mother-in-law
has harassed the deceased or there was any confrontation between the
CRL.A. 554/2012 & CRL.A. 847/2012 Page 19 of 30
two on any issue. Another submission made by Mr.Nigam, is that there
is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants were present at
the time of the incident and thus the law laid down in the case of
Trimukh Maruti Kirnan (Supra) and State of Rajasthan (Supra) would
not be applicable and it cannot be said that section 106 of the Evidence
Act would be applicable or that the burden of proof would shift on him.
State Of Rajasthan vs Thakur Singh on 30 June, 2014
31. We may also note that there is also no evidence that the mother-in-law
has harassed the deceased or there was any confrontation between the
CRL.A. 554/2012 & CRL.A. 847/2012 Page 19 of 30
two on any issue. Another submission made by Mr.Nigam, is that there
is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants were present at
the time of the incident and thus the law laid down in the case of
Trimukh Maruti Kirnan (Supra) and State of Rajasthan (Supra) would
not be applicable and it cannot be said that section 106 of the Evidence
Act would be applicable or that the burden of proof would shift on him.
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000
One of the
decisions cited in Gian Chand is that of State of West Bengal v.
Mir Mohammad Omar [JT 2000 (9) SC 467] which gives a rather
telling example explaining the principle behind Section 106 of the
Evidence Act in the following words:
State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992
In State of U.P.
v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical
evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late
night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after
sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had
committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home
at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed
that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained
and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one
room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was
complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his
wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the
CRL.A. 554/2012 & CRL.A. 847/2012 Page 25 of 30
judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted
him under Section 302 IPC.
Nika Ram vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 April, 1972
In Nika Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the
fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when
she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the
relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the
absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt.