Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (2.70 seconds)Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
(i) While addressing the issue of motive, it is now settled
law that the Prosecution need not establish motive in every case
as motive is an unknown element or that the cherished principles
or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs
through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to
embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt (See Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793).
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rattan Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 December, 1996
4. Per contra, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged
that there was no error in the Learned Trial Court considering the
statement of the victim as one under Section 32 of the Evidence
Act. That, in Rattan Singh vs. State of H.P.1, the Supreme Court has
held that Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act renders a statement
relevant when made by a person who dies, in cases in which the
cause of his death comes into question. That, the deceased has
categorically stated that the Appellant was the assailant and his
statement was proximate to the offence committed.
Narain Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 5 February, 2004
That, in
2
Narain Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court
held that, the dying declaration made by a person on the verge of
his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a
person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. Similarly,
there was no reason for the deceased to have spoken an untruth,
while pointing to the Appellant as the assailant, when he was on
the verge of death himself. That, PWs 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have
unequivocally fortified the Prosecution stand that the Appellant
was the assailant and their statements were not decimated in
cross-examination. Hence, the conviction and Order on Sentence
suffers from no infirmity which thereby brooks no interference.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
10. There has been no adherence to the principles
propounded in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and the Appellant
cannot be convicted on vague conjectures, conviction can only be
based on absolute conclusions. We cannot convince ourselves to
conclude that the circumstances presented by the Prosecution are
of a conclusive nature nor has it been shown that in all human
probability the act was committed by the accused and none else.
PW-10, the IO was required to scratch the surface and uncover
possible connections that would have given the clear picture by
connecting the dots. In the absence of such evidence, relegating
the Appellant to a life of incarceration would singularly be a
travesty of justice.