Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.37 seconds)

N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002

11. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence though the motive of the occurrence is not disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant; yet it came in the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses that the appellant-convict was having evil eyes upon the sister of the deceased Narayan Mehta and on account of this very reason, he had committed murder of Narayan Mehta. It also came in the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses that a panchayat was held but no one witness has stated that the proceeding of panchayat was reduced in writing, everything was done only in oral and the appellant-convict was also punished by the panchayat. As such, the motive of occurrence is proved from the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses but the same alone cannot be basis of conviction. The chain of circumstances should be complete. 11.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. J. Suraj vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in AIR Online 2004 SC 141 held that in case of a circumstantial evidence motive for commission of offence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused, circumstances should lead only in resistible conclusion of guilt. Paragraph No.4 reads as under:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 23 - N Dhinakar - Full Document
1   2 Next