cites: 47324441

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 699242

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 93909

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 23710

"27. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi)."

Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3286 - Full Document

"27. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi)."

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 118 - Full Document

"27. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi)."

Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 109 - H S Bedi - Full Document

"27. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi)."

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 143 - J M Panchal - Full Document

"27. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi)."

Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 117 - S Kumar - Full Document

"27. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi)."

Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 117 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0928/1996 :

Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 644 - G N Ray - Full Document

Search Results Page