Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.55 seconds)

State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000

In a case where there are eye-witnesses, everything would depend on the fact whether or not, version of such eye-witnesses is believed? The prosecution having produced the eye-witnesses, cannot then fall back upon the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act or otherwise on circumstantial evidence. The principles of law embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act have been applied in a catena of decisions, cited by learned Public Prosecutor in Ramesh Harijan, State of M.P. Vs. Lattora, State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal Vs. Shyamal Saha & Prosanta @ Kabu Kabiraj. But conviction in all those cases was based on circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 607 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next