Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2010
"34. Same type of view has been taken by
the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Aslam
v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001
(9) SCC 362. It is held that "evidence of
police officer effecting recovery could
not stand vitiated by reason of panch
witnesses supporting the evidence turning
hostile.
Iqbal Moosa Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2011
In addition to this, it is settled position
of law that prosecution, no doubt, has a
responsibility to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt but, that responsibility of
proving the case beyond reasonable doubt cannot
be stretched to the extent that prosecution has
to prove beyond the shadow of doubt and this
principle of law has been enunciated by the Apex
Court in a recent decision in case of Iqbal Moosa
Patel vs. State of Gujarat, relevant observations
of which deserve to be quoted hereinafter :
Sucha Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2003
24. Reference may also be made to the
decision of this Court in Sucha Singh &
Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643
where this Court has reiterated the
principle in the following words:
Gurbachan Singh vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1989
".......Exaggerated devotion to the
rule of benefit of doubt must not
nurture fanciful doubts or lingering
suspicion and thereby destroy social
defence. Justice cannot be made sterile
on the plea that it is better to let a
hundred guilty escape than punish an
innocent. Letting the guilty escape is
not doing justice according to law.
(See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh
AIR 1990 SC 209). Prosecution is not
required to meet any and every
hypothesis put forward by the accused.
A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary,
trivial or merely possible doubt, but a
fair doubt based upon reason and common
sense. It must grow out of the evidence
in the case. If a case is proved
perfectly, it is argued that it is
artificial; if a case has some flaws
inevitable because human beings are
prone to err, it is argued that it is
Page 25 of 28
R/CR.A/210/2014 JUDGMENT
too imperfect. One wonders whether in
the meticulous hypersensitivity to
eliminate a rare innocent from being
punished, many guilty persons must be
allowed to escape. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a
fetish."
Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 September, 2012
15. The Apex Court has, in case of Maheshbhai
Jivanbhai @ Zinabhai Jamod v. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2016 (0) AIJEL-SC 59151, dealt with a
situation in which the Apex Court has reduced the
sentence and same is the case with yet another
decision delivered by the Apex Court in case of
Shaikh Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra, reported
in 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 60475. However, it is a
settled position of law that slight change in the
fact and one additional factor may change the
complexion in applying the principle of precedent
and, therefore, considering the facts which are
emerging from the record, this Court found that
overall observations about reduction of sentence
or to be treated as undergone are in the context
Page 27 of 28
R/CR.A/210/2014 JUDGMENT
of different set of circumstance. Keeping in view
the peculiar set of those cases and considering
the factual background of present case on hand,
this Court is of the opinion that present
Criminal Appeal being devoid of merit, deserves
to be dismissed.
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 209 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vahaji Ravaji Thakore vs State Of Gujarat on 20 May, 2003
11. As stated earlier, one of the contentions
which has been raised is that some of the
witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. But overall analysis of evidence is
indicating that only some of the panchas have not
supported the case of prosecution. Nonetheless,
these panchas, who have been declared as hostile
have admitted their signature on the respective
panchnamas, have undisputedly stated that they
have signed the panchnamas and, therefore, simply
because some of the facts have not been supported
by them, the entire prosecution case cannot be
Page 22 of 28
R/CR.A/210/2014 JUDGMENT
allowed to be weakened. The Division Bench of
this Court in case of Vahaji Ravaji Thakore vs.
State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (1) GLR 777 has
taken the view that simply because panchas have
turned hostile, the entire case of prosecution
cannot be disbelieved and such observations since
relevant, more particularly paras:34 and 35, are
reproduced hereinafter :