Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Nanjundappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 May, 2022 cites

S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972

10. In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such 9 evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced. As far as the onus of proving the ingredients of an offence is concerned, in the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami Vs. State of M.P2" this Court held:­ "5 ..... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution........................…"
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1302 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1