Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Surinder Pal Jain vs Delhi Administration on 5 March, 1993
In support of this proposition,
counsel relied on the judgment reported as Surender Pal Jain v Delhi
Administration 1993 (Suppl3) SCC 681.
Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971
15. The court is of the opinion that while conduct of an accused may
constitute a material circumstance, his disappearance, or absconding with a
view to escape the police, cannot be considered a strong incriminating
circumstance, sufficient to attract the provision of Section 106, Evidence Act.
Long ago, in Matru (supra), the Supreme Court cautioned courts reading too
much into such conduct, in circumstantial evidence based cases, saying that an
accused absconding (from the police) "can scarcely be held as a determining
link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence." As far as
applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is concerned, the onus of
explaining facts "especially" within the knowledge of an accused, would arise
after the prosecution discharges its primary burden of proving all other facts,
beyond reasonable doubt.
State Of M.P Through C.B.I., Etc vs Paltan Mallah, Etc on 20 January, 2005
Other judgments (Rahman vs. State of U.P. AIR 1972 SC 110; and State of
M.P. vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733) too were relied upon.
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 March, 2006
(Bodh Raj (supra); Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v State of AP 2006 (10)
SCC 172; State of UP v Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114; Jaswant Gir v State of
Punjab 2005 (12) SCC 438; Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v State of
Maharastra AIR 2009 SC 56).
Bodh Raj @ Bodha And Ors vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 3 September, 2002
(Bodh Raj (supra); Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v State of AP 2006 (10)
SCC 172; State of UP v Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114; Jaswant Gir v State of
Punjab 2005 (12) SCC 438; Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v State of
Maharastra AIR 2009 SC 56).
Rajkumar vs State Of M.P on 14 September, 2004
Similarly, the court - at least in this
case, cannot assume that PW-7 (who deposed to sitting in her terrace) being
"clued in" to the goings on in the locality. It is inconceivable that someone
(especially a housewife aged 32 years, such as PW-7) can remain rooted at one
place for 7-8 hours continuously- and that too in the month of September, when
the weather is not always pleasant. If such were the true position, and keeping
in mind the fact that the premises where the deceased was found, could have
been accessed by others during the daytime, the possibility of others being
responsible for the crime cannot be ruled out. This court is fortified in this
opinion by the following observations of the Supreme Court, in Rajkumar, v.
State Of M. P AIR 2004 SC 4408:
Shambu Nath Mehra vs The State Of Ajmer on 12 March, 1956
The court can do no better than refer to the legendary
Justice Vivien Bose, who spoke for the Supreme Court, in Shambu Nath Mehra
vs. State of Ajmer 1956 SCR 199 thus:
Kallu @ Masih & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2006
16. This court is further conscious that though exercising appellate power
with the concomitant right to fully examine the entire record and evidence, it
upset what is a plausible or reasonable view of the Trial Court, acquitting an
accused. This was articulated by the Supreme Court in Kallu v. State of M.P.
(2006) 10 SCC 313 in the following manner:
State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005
(Bodh Raj (supra); Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v State of AP 2006 (10)
SCC 172; State of UP v Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114; Jaswant Gir v State of
Punjab 2005 (12) SCC 438; Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v State of
Maharastra AIR 2009 SC 56).
1