Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
"8. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case
is based upon circumstantial evidence. The normal principle is
that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these
circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances
taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability
the crime was committed by the accused and they should be
incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the
guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
Sukhram vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 August, 2007
The
appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which
conviction we have affirmed. Such being the position, the car was
already in the possession and control of the appellant and all that
he was required to do was to drop Abdul Mabood at any place en
route to take away the car which he had ample opportunity to do
during all the time the two were together while visiting different
places. Suffice it to say that the motive for the alleged murder is as
weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is fairly well settled that while
motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on
eyewitness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases
that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. (See Sukhram v. State
of Maharashtra, Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab and
Pannayar v. State of T.N.) Absence of strong motive in the present
case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside."
Sunil Clifford Daniel vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2012
The
appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which
conviction we have affirmed. Such being the position, the car was
already in the possession and control of the appellant and all that
he was required to do was to drop Abdul Mabood at any place en
route to take away the car which he had ample opportunity to do
during all the time the two were together while visiting different
places. Suffice it to say that the motive for the alleged murder is as
weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is fairly well settled that while
motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on
eyewitness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases
that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. (See Sukhram v. State
of Maharashtra, Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab and
Pannayar v. State of T.N.) Absence of strong motive in the present
case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside."
Vijay Shankar vs State Of Haryana on 4 August, 2015
Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 644 in the case of
Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana have summarized
the principles of circumstantial evidence as under:-
Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain à Appellant vs State Of Rajasthan à Respondent on 12 December, 2006
In view of the definite law laid down by the
Hon. Apex Court, we find that the chain of the
circumstances linking the appellants with the crime is
incomplete. The prosecution has miserably failed to
11
prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt.