Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)
Jagdish vs State on 2 November, 2012 cites

Sheo Shankar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 15 February, 2011

33. Now coming back to the substratum of the case of the prosecution that the accused Sushila and Jagdish had an illicit relationship and, therefore both of them had murdered the deceased Dhansi, who happened to be the husband of accused Sushila, the evidence of the prosecution and the defence shall have to be revisited, as proof of motive would be one of the important aspects to be taken into consideration by the courts for coming to the final conclusion in such cases. So far as motive is concerned, the settled legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case of Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3, SCC 654, in which it has been observed in para 15 as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 162 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Maqbool @ Zubir @ Shahnawaz & Anr vs State Of A.P on 8 July, 2010

36. Before parting, it is required to be noted that since this court has found that the Investigating Officer Mr. Kamlesh Choudhary had not carried out the investigation in a fair and impartial manner, rather had tried to misdirect the investigation by tampering with the evidence with a view to help the accused,and had taken the trial court for a ride, necessary action deserves to be taken against him by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan in accordance with law, as was sought to be done by the Apex Court in case of Maqbool Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 359. Accordingly we direct the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to take necessary action against the said Investigating Officer Mr. Kamlesh Choudhary in accordance with law and report to this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - S Kumar - Full Document

Shivaji Genu Mohite vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 1972

Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye-witnesses. See Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219, Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Kishanpal & Ors on 8 August, 2008

Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye-witnesses. See Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219, Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 240 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next