Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jaffar @ Raju vs State on 8 May, 2013
64. On the other hand, Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that
State V/s Rajeev @ Raju @ Kala ("Acquitted") Page 33 of 44
FIR No. 187/09; U/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D. : 29.11.2014
prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case against accused Rajeev @
Kala beyond reasonable doubt. While placing reliance upon the judgment of
Division Bench of our own High Court in the matter titled as " Jaffar @Raju
Vs. State" reported at 2013(2) JCC 1175, he submitted that the prosecution
has failed to prove the complete chain of evidence leading to the conclusion
that it was the accused and accused alone who had committed murder of
deceased Niyaz Ahmed. In order to buttress the said submission, he also
referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as available on record.
He urged that the testimony of PW7 Shiraj Ahmed does not inspire
confidence as he has vastly improved his statement during trial qua this
accused visavis his testimony recorded during trial qua co accused Ravinder
Dahiya who has already been acquitted on 27.03.11 by Ld predecessor of this
Court.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
67. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra"reported at (1984) 4 SCC
116, has laid down the following five golden principles constituting the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1