Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.89 seconds)
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 1989 cites

Ramaphupala Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 1970

The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances In Ramaphupala Reddy v. State of A.P. () it was observed that it was best to bear in mind that normally the High Court is a final court of appeal and the Supreme Court is only a court of special jurisdiction. This Court would not therefore reappraise the evidence unless, for example, the forms of legal process are disregarded or principles of natural justice are violated or substantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 49 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Gambhir vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 1982

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively; should from o chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of 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 Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 266 - Full Document
1   2 Next