Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalised by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sharda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC
116, wherein it was held as under :
Hanumant vs The State Of Madhya ... on 23 January, 1952
It may be
useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 04:48:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLA-582/2002]
[(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri
LJ 129] :
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 :1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl
LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.
807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance between
'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions."
Mohd. Jabir And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 July, 2017
16. The above mentioned proposition of law has recently being
reiterated by he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jabir &
Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32 also.