Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. vs Sukhbasi And Ors. on 10 May, 1985
(See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad
(AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
(AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR
1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987
SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989
SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to
the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from
those circumstances.
Balwinder Singh Alias Dalbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 November, 1986
(See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad
(AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
(AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR
1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987
SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989
SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to
the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from
those circumstances.
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 1989
(See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad
(AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
(AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR
1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987
SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989
SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to
the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from
those circumstances.
Bhagat Ram vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1954
In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR
1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends
upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative
effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the
innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond
any reasonable doubt.
C. Chenga Reddy And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 1996
We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996
(10) SCC 193), wherein it has been observed thus:
Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989
In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
following tests:
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.
L.J. 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken
in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence
relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one
in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also
pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found
to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of
all the facts so established must be consistent only with
the hypothesis of guilt.