Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.62 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
17. A reference may be made to alter decision in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622. Therein, while
dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was
on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the
infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or
plea. The conditions precedent in the words of the this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established. They are:
State Of Karnataka vs Suvarnamma & Anr on 14 October, 2014
14. Again, in the case of State of Karnataka v Smt Suvarnamma and
anr, 2014 4 Crimes(SC) 418, the Supreme Court, while referring to well known
principles of appreciation of evidence in a case based upon circumstantial
evidence, observed as under:
Shahbuddin vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 25 May, 2017
In this regard, learned counsel for the
appellants has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of
Shahbuddin vs the State(Nct of Delhi) 95 (2002) DLT 562 wherein it has been
laid down that morphological and microscopical characteristic test is not a sure
test for arriving at a conclusion that two hairs belong to one and the same person.