Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chaman Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 6 March, 1970
In Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1372, Supreme Court holds
[15]. In order to come within the First Excep3on to Sec3on 499 of
the Indian Penal Code it has to be established that what has been
imputed concerning the respondent is true and the publica3on of
the imputa3on is for the public good. The onus of proving these
two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputa3on and the
publica3on of the imputa3on for the public good is on the
appellant. ...
Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 1965
In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97, a three-member bench of
Supreme Court holds,
[14]. It is true that under Sec3on 105 of the Evidence Act, if an
accused person claims the benefit of Excep3ons, the burden of
proving his plea that his case falls under the Excep3ons is on the
accused. But the ques3on which oJen arises and has been
frequently considered by judicial decisions is whether the nature
and extent of the onus of proof placed on an accused person who
claims the benefit of an Excep3on is exactly the same as the
nature and extent of the onus placed on the prosecu3on in a
criminal case; and there is consensus of judicial opinion in favour
of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the
accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading
evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, no
doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the
prosecu3on has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the
accused; but that is not a test which can be applied to an accused
person who seeks to prove substan3ally his claim that his case
falls under an Excep3on. Where an accused person is called upon
to prove that his case falls under an Excep3on, law treats the onus
as discharged if the accused person succeeds "in proving a
preponderance of probability". As soon as the preponderance of
probability is proved, the burden shiJs to the prosecu3on which
has s3ll to discharge its original onus. It must be remembered that
basically, the original onus never shiJs and the prosecu3on has, at
all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. As Phipson has observed, when the burden of
an issue is upon the accused, he is not, in general, called on to
prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict
of guilty; it is sufficient if he succeeds in proving a preponderance
of probability, for then the burden is shiJed to the prosecu3on
which has s3ll to discharge its original onus that never shiJs, i.e,,
that of establishing, on the whole case, guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Shatrughna Prasad Sinha vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi & Ors on 10 September, 1996
In Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi, (1996) 6 SCC 263,
Supreme Court holds,
[13]. ...It is the seHled legal posi3on that a Court has to read the
complaint as a whole and find out whether allega3ons disclosed
cons3tute an offence under Sec3on 499 triable by the Magistrate.
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Aroon Purie vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 October, 2022
In Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022(4) Law Herald (SC) 3177, Supreme
Court holds,
[18]. We now turn to the ques3on: whether the benefit of any of
the excep3ons to Sec3on 499 of the IPC can be availed of and on
the strength of such excep3ons, the proceedings can be quashed
at the stage when an applica3on moved under Sec3on 482 of the
Code is considered?
Bhushan Kumar & Anr vs State(Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 April, 2012
In Bhushan Kumar and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 794, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that: