Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 57 (0.46 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Jeet Singh on 15 March, 1999
40. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of the accused is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of the Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where it relies upon the testimony of eye-witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account of the occurrence. (Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand; 2011(74) ACC 159 (SC), Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2001 (2) JIC (SC), State of H.P. vs. Jeet Singh; (1999) 4 SCC 370; Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police; AIR 2010 SC 85)
Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2003
42. The prosecution case could not be denied on the ground of alleged absence or insufficiency of motive. Motive is insignificant in cases of direct evidence of eyewitnesses. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable, truthful & acceptable evidence is available on record sufficient to establish the guilty of accused persons. [Gopi Ram Vs. St. Of U.P.; 2006 (55) ACC 673 SC; State of U.P. vs. Nawab Singh; 2005 SCC (Criminal) 33, Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav vs. State of Karnataka; (2003) 6 SCC 392, R.R. Reddy V. State of A.P.; AIR 2006 SC 1656, Sucha Singh V. State of Punjab; AIR 2003 SC 1471, State of Rajasthan v/s Arjun Singh AIR 2011 SC 3380, Varun Chaudhry v/s State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 72]
State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004
42. The prosecution case could not be denied on the ground of alleged absence or insufficiency of motive. Motive is insignificant in cases of direct evidence of eyewitnesses. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable, truthful & acceptable evidence is available on record sufficient to establish the guilty of accused persons. [Gopi Ram Vs. St. Of U.P.; 2006 (55) ACC 673 SC; State of U.P. vs. Nawab Singh; 2005 SCC (Criminal) 33, Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav vs. State of Karnataka; (2003) 6 SCC 392, R.R. Reddy V. State of A.P.; AIR 2006 SC 1656, Sucha Singh V. State of Punjab; AIR 2003 SC 1471, State of Rajasthan v/s Arjun Singh AIR 2011 SC 3380, Varun Chaudhry v/s State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 72]
State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984
In this context, I may fruitfully reproduce a passage from State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony- (1985) 1 SCC 505:
Harijana Thirupala And Ors. vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., ... on 1 August, 2002
In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.-(2002) 6 SCC 470, it has been ruled that:
Krishna Mochi & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2002
In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar-(2002) 6 SCC 81, the Court ruled that:
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
In the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh-1988 (Supp.) SCC 686, it was held that 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. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.