Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 1980
29. The case of the prosecution, thus, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by
reliance on the last seen theory. The last seen theory is that „no third person
excepting the accused‟ could have committed the crime, which „inescapably
lead[s] to the conclusion that in all human probability, it was the accused and no
one else‟ who committed the crime Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1217).
State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992
In any case, the last seen theory does not justify
a finding of guilt by itself (State of UP v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992
SC 2045). We therefore hold that the Trial Court erred in holding that the last seen
circumstance was proved in this case.
Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989
33. The Trial Court has relied on Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors., 1989 (Supp) 2 SCC 706, and similar cases to reiterate established
principles of conviction on circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court also cited a
catena of cases for the proposition that a fake explanation forms the missing link
for prosecution case. The Trial court then noted that the accused have not provided
any explanation as to the cause of death, or the identity of the killers. This,
however, amounts to a reversal of evidentiary burden. Only in instances where the
Prosecution has established a fact to certainty, so as to invoke Section 106,
Evidence Act, and then the accused is unable to explain the circumstances, can
such an inference be drawn. Adverse inferences from the silence of the accused are
not permissible. Further, the Court has stated discrepancies in the testimonies are
only „minor‟. However, these discrepancies and absence of corroboration highlight
inconsistencies in the prosecution case as to the time of discovery of the body, the
manner of its finding, the discovery of allegedly stolen items etc.
Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995
In the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported as Gulab Chand vs. State of
M.P., AIR 1995 SC 1598 where ornaments of the deceased were recovered from
the possession of the accused immediately after the occurrence, it was held:
Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
It may be indicated here that in a latter
decision of this Court in Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka [1983 (2)
SCC 330] (AIR 1983 SC 446), this Court has held that the nature of the
presumption and Illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act must
depend upon the the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time-limit can be
laid down to determine whether possession in the recent or otherwise and
each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts
to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies
according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from
hand to hand."