Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.93 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mannu Sao vs State Of Bihar on 22 July, 2010
11. This is the settled law that the statement made in
defense by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C can
certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led
by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C cannot be made the sole basis of his
conviction. Hon'ble Apex Court in Manu Sao Vs. State of Bihar
(2010) 12 SCC 310 in para 14 and 15 observed as under:-
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 where the observations
were made : [AIR 1973 SC 2622]
"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."
Hanumant vs The State Of Madhya ... on 23 January, 1952
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court
we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character
and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic
decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh.