Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
C. Chenga Reddy And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 1996
6. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court
in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC
193, wherein it has been observed thus:
Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989
In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
following tests:
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ
1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour
of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that
the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been
fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
12. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in
prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The
conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be
fully established. They are:
State Of Rajasthan vs Raja Ram on 13 August, 2003
13. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261) and Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of
on 7.7.2008)
State Of Haryana vs Jagbir Singh And Anr on 26 September, 2003
13. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261) and Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of
on 7.7.2008)
State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005
In State of U.P. v.
Satish [2005 (3) SCC 114] it was noted as follows:
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 March, 2006
In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [2006
(10) SCC 172] it was noted as follows: