Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.35 seconds)Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010
In paras 25 and 26, it is observed and held as under: [Babu v. State of
Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189], SCC pp. 200-01)
'25.
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rambraksh @ Jalim vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2016
In the case of
Bodh Raj Alias Bodha v/s State of Jammu and Kashmir, Rambraksh v/s State of Chhattisgarh,
Anjan Kumar Sharma v/s State of Assam following principle of law, in this regard, has been
enunciated:-
Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2021
37. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that motive is an important factor to be
established in cases of circumstantial evidence. No instances of animosity between the
deceased and the appellant which may have led the appellant to do away with the deceased
could be affirmed by the prosecution. Rather the evidence reveals friendship between the
appellant and the deceased and the appellant used to visit the deceased frequently. With
Page No.# 27/29
regard to "motive" it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Chintappa
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 626 that :-
Anwar Ali vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 September, 2020
"30. It will be relevant to refer to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Anwar
Ali and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh:-
Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994
"24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the
prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused
deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot
be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 that if motive is proved
that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof
cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.
State Of U.P vs Kishanpal & Ors on 8 August, 2008
In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, (2008) 16 SCC 73, this Court examined the
importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87-88,
paras 38-39)
'38. ... the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused
themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually
promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime.