Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)Gambhir vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 1982
7. The present is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There are no ocular witnesses of the crime. It is settled law that in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances which form part of the chain of events leading to the crime must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The chain should be complete and not a single link should be missing. If a single link is found missing, the entire chain breaks. The Supreme Court has in Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, laid down the following tests in such matters :-
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 December, 1974
14. In law even if in a given case based on circumstantial evidence, the theory of motive as set up by the prosecution is weak, that alone is not sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution, if there is other sufficient evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused. In other words, failure to prove motive does not break the chain when there are other facts and circumstances which conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. For this we rely on Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 SCC (Cri)928 and Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, .
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1