Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anter Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 February, 2004
18) The evidence led in by the prosecution also shows that at the
relevant point of time, the deceased was living with all the 3 accused. In
other words, the appellants, their son-A3 and the deceased were the only
occupants of the house and it was, therefore, incumbent on the appellants
to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to
their guilt. All the factors referred above are undoubtedly circumstances
which constitute a chain even stronger than the account of a eye-witness
and, therefore, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellants is
fully justified.
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000
19) It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of
evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other
proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of
proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a
logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is
strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers
the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to
have happened. In that process, the Courts shall have regard to the common
course of natural events, human conduct etc in addition to the facts of the
case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of
the Evidence Act can also be utilized. We make it clear that this Section
is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where
the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts,
unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts,
failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a
different inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in
State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammed Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382:
Shambu Nath Mehra vs The State Of Ajmer on 12 March, 1956
In Shambhu Nath
Mehra v. State of Ajmer the learned Judge has stated the legal
principle thus:
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
5) In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC
116, this Court after referring to various earlier decisions, formulated
the following conditions to be fulfilled before a case against an accused
can be said to be fully established based on circumstantial evidence:-