Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (3.16 seconds)Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
12. The classic enunciation of the law pertaining to
circumstantial evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as a proof of
charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others traceable to the
decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. The relevant excerpts from
paragraph 153 of the decision is assuredly apposite:
Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State Of Assam on 28 May, 2013
* * *
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
18
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
As recently as in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) 12
SCC 406 and Raja @ Rajendra vs. State of Haryaya (2015) 11
SCC 43, it has been propounded that in scrutinizing the
circumstantial evidence, a court is required to evaluate it to ensure
that the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule
out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. It was
underlined that whether the chain is complete or not would
depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and
no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. That in judging the
culpability of the accused, the circumstances adduced when
collectively considered, must lead only to the irresistible conclusion
that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged. That
the circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, was
emphatically propounded.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1