Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)Surinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 13 November, 2013
37. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the absence of proof of
motive can be critically fatal to the case of the prosecution. The
CRLA No.113 of 2000 Page 18 of 21
observation in Surinder Singh v. State (supra)was in the context
of a case of direct evidence and not a case of circumstantial
evidence. It was explained in the said decision as under:
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dharam Deo Yadav vs State Of U.P on 11 April, 2014
22. The above submissions have been considered. The Court will
now proceed to discuss each of the links in the chain of
circumstances, as projected by the prosecution. First is the link of
'last seen'. The decision in Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar
Pradesh(supra) is instructive in this regard. The legal position
was explained in the said decision in Para-19 as under:
State Of Karnataka vs M.V.Mahesh on 4 March, 2003
30. Even in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.V.
Mahesh [(2003) 3 SCC 353], this Court held that merely
being last seen together is not enough. What has to be
established in a case of this nature is definite evidence to
indicate that the deceased had been done to death of
which the respondent is or must be aware as also
proximate to the time of being last seen together. No such
clinching evidence is put forth. It is no doubt true that
even in the absence corpus delicti it is possible to
establish in an appropriate case commission of murder on
appropriate material being made available to the Court.
State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005
In the case of State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3SCC
114], this Court had stated that the principle of last seen
comes into play where the time gap between the point of
time when the accused and the deceased were last seen
alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused being the
author of the crime becomes impossible.
Shivaji Genu Mohite vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 1972
"that in case the prosecution is not able to
discover an impelling motive, that could not
reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to
be a reliable eyewitness. Evidence as to motive
would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly
dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such
evidence would form one of the links in the chain
of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that
would not be so in cases where there are
eyewitnesses of credibility, though even in such
cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof
would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify
the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does
not mean that if motive is not established, the
evidence of an eyewitness is rendered
untrustworthy."[See: Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State
of Maharashtra and Bipin Kumar Mondal vs.
State of West Bengal]
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2010
"that in case the prosecution is not able to
discover an impelling motive, that could not
reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to
be a reliable eyewitness. Evidence as to motive
would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly
dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such
evidence would form one of the links in the chain
of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that
would not be so in cases where there are
eyewitnesses of credibility, though even in such
cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof
would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify
the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does
not mean that if motive is not established, the
evidence of an eyewitness is rendered
untrustworthy."[See: Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State
of Maharashtra and Bipin Kumar Mondal vs.
State of West Bengal]
Brijesh Mavi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2012
In Brajesh Mavi v. The State (2012) 7 SCC
45 the Supreme Court explained: