Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Section 30 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988
This has been followed by this Court in Kehar Singh vs.
State (Delhi (Administration) [AIR 1988 SC 1883].
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh on 10 December, 1999
When we know that there was blood on the pitcher
it is for A2 Guruji to explain how it was. But when he
denied even the seizure of the pitcher, such a denial, in
this context, is not inconsequential. In another case, a
similar denial was treated by this Court as sufficient to
provide a "missing link" to the chain of circumstances.
(State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh 2000(1) SCC 471)
After the arrest of A3 Mukinda Thorat, he told the
Investigating Officer that "Dipak's dead body was carried by
me and Guruji(A-2) on his motor cycle and thrown in the
canal." The said statement of A3 Mukinda Thorat was not
found admissible in evidence as the dead body was not
recovered pursuant to the said statement. This aspect
requires more consideration. It must be pointed out that
pursuant to the said statement and the offer made by A3
Mukinda Thorat that he would point out the spot, he was
taken to the spot and there PW44(Investigating Officer)
found a broken piece of glass lying on the ground. It was
picked up by him. In this context, it is important to refer
to another item of evidence. A motor cycle was recovered
from the house of A2 Guruji and its tail lamp was found
broken and one piece of it was missing. But when the broken
glass piece recovered from the spot pointed out by A3
Mukinda Thorat was placed on the broken situs of the tail
lamp of the motor cycle, it so fitted with the space that
PW44 Investigating Officer had no doubt whatsoever that the
said glass piece was originally part of the tail lamp of
that motor cycle.
S. Shanmugadivelu, S. Nalini & Others vs State By D.S.P., Cbi, Sit, Chennai on 11 May, 1999
In this context, we may
refer to S. Nalini and Others Vs. State by D.S.P., CBI,
SIT, Chennai 1999(5) SCC 253. In paragaraph 107, this Court
has stated thus:-
Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar vs State Of Maharashtra(And Connected ... on 18 March, 1963
"The first condition which is almost the opening lock of
that provision is the existence of "reasonable ground to
believe" that the conspirators have conspired together.
This condition will be satisfied even when there is some
prima facie evidence to show that there was such a criminal
conspiracy. If the aforesaid preliminary condition is
fulfilled then anything said by one of the conspirators
becomes substantive evidence against the other, provided
that should have been a statement "in reference to their
common intention". Under the corresponding provision in the
English law the expression used is "in furtherance of the
common object". No doubt, the words "in reference to their
common intention" are wider than the words used in English
law(vide Sardar Sardul Singh Carveeshar Vs. State of
Maharashtra)."
State Of Gujarat vs Mohammed Atik And Others on 3 April, 1998
The basic principle which underlies in Section 10 of the
Evidence Act is the theory of agency and hence every
conspirator is an agent of his associate in carrying out the
object of the conspiracy (State of Gujarat Vs. Mohd. Atik-
1998(4) SCC 351). Section 10 permits "anything said, done
or written by anyone of such persons in reference to their
common intention" to be recorded as a relevant fact as
against each of the persons believed to be so conspired.