Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)

Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 1989

and Gaikwad RD 10/26 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2016 00:10:13 ::: (211)APEAL-2432011(J) 4 The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890, Padala Veera v. State of A.P., AIR 1990 SC 79.) 13 The prosecution case is based on the following circumstances in order to point out guilt of the appellant/accused :
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 350 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

(211)APEAL-2432011(J) 25 The conduct of the appellant/accused also becomes relevant and incriminates him. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellant/accused, he has stated cause of burn injuries sustained by him at about the time and date of the incident as due to his attempt to extinguish fire from person of deceased Ashatai. However, on the first opportunity when he got himself admitted to the Rural Hospital, Shirala the appellant/accused has stated the history of sustaining burn injuries as accidental burn caused during lightening of the stove by him. This is reflected from papers of medical treatment of the appellant/accused, which are admitted by him. He had suffered 45% burn injuries in the incident. The history narrated by him to the medical officer first in point of time is of accidental burns, whereas during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is stating that he sustained burns while extinguishing a fire from person of Ashatai. It is obviously a false plea taken by the appellant/accused. A false plea taken by the appellant/accused in case of circumstantial evidence Gaikwad RD 25/26 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2016 00:10:13 ::: (211)APEAL-2432011(J) providing an additional link in the chain of circumstances (see Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984)4 SCC 116).
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document
1