Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Karnail Singh on 14 August, 2003
"11. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such
circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and
commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it
will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial
evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. 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. (See Stirland v. Director of Public
Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in
State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh : 2003CriLJ3892 ). The law does not
enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character
which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to
be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is
capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence
Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of
any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the
content and scope of this provision and it reads:
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000
13. The question of burden of proof where some facts are within the
personal knowledge of the accused was examined in State of West
Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. : 2000CriLJ4047 . In this case
the assailants forcibly dragged the deceased Mahesh from the house
where he was taking shelter on account of the fear of the accused and
took him away at about 2.30 in the night. Next
day in the morning his mangled body was found lying in the hospital.
The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 364 read with
Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years RI. The accused
preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court and
the State also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused
for murder charge. The accused had not given any explanation as to
what happened to Mahesh after he was abducted by them. The learned
Sessions Judge after referring to the law on circumstantial evidence had
observed that there was a missing link in the chain of evidence after the
deceased was last seen together with the accused persons and the
discovery of the dead body in the hospital and had concluded that the
prosecution had failed to establish the charge of murder against the
accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. This Court took note of
the
provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and laid down the
following principle in paras 31 to 34 of the reports: