Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.27 seconds)

Manmeet Singh Alias Goldie vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2015

49. The most important aspect is that the prosecution has been unable to establish the participation of five or more persons nor the identity of other two accused was established. We are directly covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Manpreet Singh alias Goldee Vs. State of Punjab 2015 (7) SCC 167. Thus, the said judgment will not permit us to uphold the conviction. Recovery in this case cannot be said to be reliable. The objection raised by the defence to the recovery made cannot be sustained but the recovery by itself will be permit us to confirm the judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 16 - A Roy - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Sunil on 2 May, 2017

"In the totality of the facts and circumstances what emerges that it is case of circumstantial evidence. The two circumstances  which point finger at the accused are the recovery at his behest but the said recovery is from the house belonging to the prosecution witnesses also and was from a known place, known to all and, therefore, the decision in State of U.P. Vs. Sunil (supra), will come to the aid of accused. There is now a snap in the chain namely the time during which the death occurred and the accused had already come back home. It was after his coming back that the death occurred as per Doctor's version".
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - P C Ghosh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next