Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tejinder Singh @ Kaka vs State Of Punjab on 11 April, 2013
25. This Court further noted that: (Kashmira Singh
case, AIR p. 160, para 10)
"10. cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared
to act on the other evidence as it stands even though,
if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a
conviction. In such an event, the Judge may call in aid
the confession and use it to lend assurance to the
other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing
what without the aid of the confession, he would not
be prepared to accept."
Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989
In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and others, 1990(2)
RCR (Crl.) 26 (SC), it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy
the following tests:-
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
In the facts of the case, a reference may also be made to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984, SC 1622. While
dealing with circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held
that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the
infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or
plea. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following conditions,
before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence and those are:-