Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.24 seconds)
Shiv Shankar vs State Of U.P. on 24 November, 2017 cites

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 vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made : [SCC p.807, para 19 : SCC (Cri) p.1047] '19.. ... 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 betweem "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
1   2 3 4 5 Next