Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
[23] In our opinion, when the case of the prosecution rested on
circumstantial evidence, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal death
and not suicidal. There is also no extra judicial confession from the accused
person. It has also been contended that the motive behind the murder of the
deceased was also not established.PW-1, the doctor who opined that the
death of the deceased could be homicidal death also. The law on the
appreciation of circumstantial evidence is also well settled. The
circumstances concerned must or should be established and not may be
established, as held in Shivaji Shabrao Bobade and Another v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793. The accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a Court can convict him. The conclusion of
guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague
conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any
Page 13 of 14
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused.
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Arjun Marik vs State Of Bihar on 2 March, 1994
In Arjun Marik & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, It was
observed that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of
circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and therefore no conviction on that
basis alone can be founded.