Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
[See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [AIR 1992 SC 840]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.
Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 February, 1978
[See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) ( AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation.
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
"[A] judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution ( 1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh ( AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
In matters such as this, it is appropriate to recall the observations of this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1974 (1) SCR 489 (492-493)] :
State Of U.P vs Krishna Gopal & Anr on 12 August, 1988
19. The position was again illuminatingly highlighted in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (AIR 1988 SC 2154).