Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Ravi vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2023 cites

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Complicity of an accused in a case based upon circumstantial evidence has to inferred in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622. However, upto this stage none of the parameters laid down in aforesaid judgment are satisfied against applicant. The only incriminating circumstance has emerged in the crime in question against the applicant in the confessional statement of co-accused Shivam alias Mulayam. As per the said confessional statement the act of strangulating the deceased is attributable to co-accused Shivam alias Mulayam. Applicant alongwith co-accused Mohit Babu are alleged to have co-operated with aforementioned named accused in throwing the dead body of the deceased in the dam i.e. Rihand Dam. According to the learned counsel for applicant though the confessional statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence but since the recovery made by the Investigating Officer and the medical opinion tallies with the confessional statement of the accused, therefore, the said confessional statement cannot be ignored altogether. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from named/charge sheeted co-accused Shivam alias Mulayam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document
1