Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.20 seconds)Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 December, 2006
"The burden of proof in a criminal trial
never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof
required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict
the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel
and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the
evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce
an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the
FIR No. 60/2000 STATE V/s SAHID KHAN PAGE No.7/13
facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr.
AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State
of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. Vs.
State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs State Of Punjab [Alongwith Criminal ... on 10 April, 1957
In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957
SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
Sucha Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2003
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
16 In the judgment of Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 2003 Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:
Gurbachan Singh vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1989
"21. 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 hundred guilty escape than punish
an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice
according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and
others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)].
Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis
put forward by the accused.
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
[See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. 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 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.
Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 February, 1978
[See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of
(Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take
place of judicial evaluation. "A judge does not preside over a
criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished.
A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
FIR No. 60/2000 STATE V/s SAHID KHAN PAGE No.8/13
Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would
be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract
speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than
truth."