Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005
9.2. On the issue of last seen together evidence, in State
of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
Hatti Singh vs State Of Haryana on 17 April, 2007
9.3. This position was reiterated in Hatti Singh v. State
of Haryana (2007) 12 SCC 471.
Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 1975
fact thereby discovered is admissible - Mohd.
Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra: AIR
(1976) SC 483
Two conditions for application -
Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
(1) information must be such as has caused discovery
of the fact; and
(2) information must relate distinctly to the fact
discovered − Earabhadrappa v. State of
Karnataka: AIR (1983) SC 446"
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
In the landmark case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-
Arjun Marik vs State Of Bihar on 2 March, 1994
In a case where the other circumstances have
not been convincingly proved its becomes imperative for the
prosecution to prove the motive for the crime as explained by the
Supreme Court in Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar; 1994 Supp
(2) SCC 372 in the following words: "..........mere absence of
proof of motive for commission of a crime cannot be a ground to
presume the innocence of an accused, if, the involvement of the
accused is otherwise established. But it has to be remembered that
in incidents in which the only evidence available is circumstantial
evidence, then in that event, the motive does assume importance,
if, it is established from the evidence on record that the accused
had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime
and the established circumstances along with the explanation of
the accused, if any, exclude the reasonable possibility of anybody
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 56 of 59
57
else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence
may be considered to show that within all human probability the
crime must have been committed by the accused".