Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.93 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors on 31 January, 2003
(e) Relying on the judgment in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, 2003 (2)
SCC 518, it was contended, that where the prosecution case is fully
established by the testimony of witnesses which stood corroborated by
medical evidence, any failure or omission of the investigating officer
could not be treated as sufficient to render the prosecution case doubtful
or unworthy of belief. This determination leads to the same inference,
namely, when reliable evidence to prove the guilt of an accused is
available, lapses in investigation would not result in grant of the benefit
of doubt to an accused.
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
(f) Referring to State Government of NCT Delhi v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC
652, it was asserted, that in a case where a child of four years was
brutally raped and murdered and incriminating articles were recovered on
the basis of the statement of the accused, the same could not be discarded
on the technical ground that no independent witness was examined.
Joseph Alias Jose vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2003
(g) Referring to the judgment in Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2005) 5 SCC
197, wherein, according to the learned counsel, it was held that where the
circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain unerringly
pointing to the guilt of the appellant, then the same can be the basis of
the conviction of the accused. This, according to learned counsel,
represents the manner of proving the guilt of an accused based on
circumstantial evidence.
State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005
(h) Based on the judgment in State of UP v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, it
was contended that it could not be laid down as a rule of universal
application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular
witness, the prosecution version becomes suspect. Therefore, the facts
surrounding the delay ought to be considered in every case to determine
whether or not the testimony is rendered suspicious.
Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr vs State Of Assam on 16 January, 2007
(i) Relying on the judgment in Bishnu Prasad Sinha v State of Assam,
(2007) 11 SCC 467, it was submitted, that in the above case where a child
of 7-8 years was a victim of rape and murder, the grounds that the
investigation was done in an improper manner did not render the entire
prosecution case to be false. Namely, where reliable evidence is
available, the same would determine the guilt of an accused.
Aftab Ahmad Anasari vs State Of Uttaranchal on 12 January, 2010
(j) Referring to the judgment in Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583, it was asserted, that where a child of five
years was a victim of rape and murder and the accused disclosed the
location of the crime as also of the incriminating articles, the said
disclosure was admissible and would constitute a complete chain in the
circumstances. Further, according to the learned counsel, it was held that
the inquest panchnama may not contain every detail and the absence of some
details would not affect the veracity of the deposition made by witnesses.
Needless to mention, that absence of vital links in the claim of
circumstantial evidence would result in the exoneration of the accused.
Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr vs State Of Assam on 15 September, 2010
(k) Reliance was placed on Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC
374, so as to contend, that any discrepancy occurring in the inquest report
or the post mortem report could neither be fatal nor be termed as a
suspicious circumstance as would warrant a benefit to the accused and the
resultant dismissal of the prosecution case. Needless to add, that there
should be sufficient independent evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused.