Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Kesar Bai Shende And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh 48 Cra/770/2012 ... on 13 March, 2018
cites
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 357 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006
In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v.
State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681) this Court held
that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the
husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no
explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the
circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible
for the injuries. It was said: (SCC p. 694, para 22)
"22 Where an accused is alleged to have
committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution
succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly
before the commission of crime they were seen together
or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where
the husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any
explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an
explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong
circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime."
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gian Chand & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2013
21. More recently, in Gian Chand v. State of Haryana
{(2013) 14 SCC 420} a large number of decisions of this
Court were referred to and the interpretation given to Section
106 of the Evidence Act in Shambhu Nath Mehra was
reiterated.
Jagdish vs State Of M.P on 18 September, 2009
In Jagdish v. State of MP {(2009) 9 SCC 495} this
Court observed as follows: (SCC 503, para 22)
"22... It bears repetition that the appellant and the
deceased family members were the only occupants of
the room and it was therefore incumbent on the
appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to
avoid any suspicion as to his guilt."