Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 cites

Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978

It will be recalled that the deceased was undoubtedly in possession of currency notes because of the realisation he had made from the debtors of the Co-operative Society only a little while earlier, and the fact that the respondent hid the notes after tying them in a handkerchief, shows that he knew that their possessions with him would be incriminating and unexplainable. The intervening period between the loss of the money and the ring by the deceased and their recovery was not more than six days, which was quite a short period. All these facts were not only proof of robbery but were presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(1), Tulsiram Kanu v. The State,(2) Sunderlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(3), Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh (4) and Baiju alias Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra). In fact it has, not been disputed before us that if the respondents possession of the incriminating articles was held proved, the circus stantial evidence against him would be sufficient to justify the trial (1) [1956] S.C.R. 191.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 69 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Wasim Khan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 12 March, 1956

It will be recalled that the deceased was undoubtedly in possession of currency notes because of the realisation he had made from the debtors of the Co-operative Society only a little while earlier, and the fact that the respondent hid the notes after tying them in a handkerchief, shows that he knew that their possessions with him would be incriminating and unexplainable. The intervening period between the loss of the money and the ring by the deceased and their recovery was not more than six days, which was quite a short period. All these facts were not only proof of robbery but were presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(1), Tulsiram Kanu v. The State,(2) Sunderlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(3), Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh (4) and Baiju alias Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra). In fact it has, not been disputed before us that if the respondents possession of the incriminating articles was held proved, the circus stantial evidence against him would be sufficient to justify the trial (1) [1956] S.C.R. 191.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 107 - S J Imam - Full Document
1   2 Next