Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Abdul Nassar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 May, 2022
In Abdul Nassar's case (supra), the Apex
Court has laid down the following principles, which the
Courts must adhere to, while appreciating and evaluating
evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, which
are as follows:
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
21. It is also relevant to extract Para-42 of the
judgment referred in Chandrappa's case (supra).
Sirajuddin Alias Siraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 1980
iii) Sirajuddin alias Siraj v. State of
Karnataka. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 375.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
NC: 2026:KHC:16127-DB
CRL.A No. 865 of 2018
HC-KAR
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned "must or should" and
not "may be" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be
proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was
held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC
(Cri) 1033: 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: