Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
State Of Odisha vs Pratap Kr. Das & Anr on 26 March, 2025 cites

Satpal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 28 July, 2010

Moreover, there is no credible evidence to suggest that the Respondents were in the company of the deceased in close proximity to the time of her death. The deceased was reported missing around 10:00 p.m., and her body was discovered the following morning. The time gap between the alleged last sighting and the discovery of the body is substantial, leaving ample room for the involvement of other persons. The absence of any direct evidence placing the Respondents with the deceased immediately before her death breaks the chain of circumstances necessary for applying the last-seen theory. Additionally, the prosecution failed to recover any incriminating material from the Respondents or establish any other conclusive circumstances linking them to the crime. As per Satpal (Supra), the evidence presented does not form a continuous chain leading to the inescapable conclusion that the Respondents were responsible for the death of the deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 310 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 May, 1969

18. In the instant case, while assessing the police dog evidence, it is observed that the investigation lacked critical elements. The prosecution did not present evidence of the dog's training, skill, or past performance to establish its reliability. No forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, bloodstains, or incriminating materials, was recovered from the locations identified by the dog. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the conditions under which the dog conducted the tracking were controlled or that there were no other CRLLP No. 53 of 2006 Page 19 of 22 scent trails that could have confused the animal. Applying the principles laid down in Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafedar (Supra), since the dog cannot testify in court, its handler must provide evidence regarding the dog's behaviour. This introduces a layer of hearsay, as the handler is merely interpreting the dog's reactions rather than providing direct evidence. The dog is a mere "tracking instrument" rather than a witness, with the handler reporting the dog's behaviour. The police dog evidence, in the instant case, is unreliable in the absence of corroboration. It cannot form the basis for implicating Respondent No.1, as the investigation did not meet the necessary safeguards to ensure the reliability of the dog's actions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 38 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984

11. Coming to the culpability of the Accused-Respondents, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, and it is trite law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, before reaching a conclusion, the Court is required to examine the evidence on the touchstone of the decision reported in the matter of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 -
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 607 - S M Ali - Full Document
1