Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
"11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of
SC No. 244/17, FIR No. 60/17, PS Sarita Vihar State vs. Kamrul Islam Ghazi 14 of 28
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.10.01
12:09:49 +0530
circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the
judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:-
Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State Of Assam on 28 May, 2013
In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, it
was held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and
the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true
but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear
of any possible surmise or conjecture.
Kiriti Pal vs State Of West Bengal on 16 April, 2015
5 Kiriti Pal v. State of West
Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 14. From the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 10,
178; prosecution has thus established that Anjali was
last seen alive in the company of first appellant
Kiriti Pal on the evening of 11.11.2008 and that
at about 10.00/10.30 p.m., first appellant Kiriti
Pal came alone. The theory of "last seen alive"
State Of Karnataka vs Chand Basha on 18 September, 2015
In State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha (2015) 3 ACR 3439,
the Supreme Court explained: