Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.25 seconds)
Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2021 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram on 7 November, 2006

Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State on the judgment of Kashi Ram (supra) is concerned, it would reveal, that this Court had used the factor of non-explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. only as an additional link to fortify the finding, that the prosecution had established chain of events unquestionably leading to the guilt of the accused and not as a link to complete the 15 chain. As such, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 432 - B P Singh - Full Document

Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “19. …..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1846 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sawal Das vs State Of Bihar on 9 January, 1974

“33.1. Insofar as the “last seen theory” is concerned, there is no doubt that the appellant being none other than the wife of the deceased and staying under the same roof, was the last person the deceased was seen with. However, such companionship of the deceased and the appellant, by itself, does not mean that a presumption of guilt of the appellant is to be drawn. The trial court and the High Court have proceeded on the assumption that Section 106 of the Evidence Act directly operates against the appellant. In our view, such an approach has also not 9 (2006) 10 SCC 681 10 (2008) 5 SCC 587 10 been free from error where it was omitted to be considered that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden. This Court has explained the principle in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193 in the following: (SCC p. 197, para 10) “10. Neither an application of Section 103 nor of 106 of the Evidence Act could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused.””
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 129 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 3 Next