Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
30.As far as circumstantial evidence is concerned, it is well settled
law that the prosecution has to establish each circumstance by independent
evidence and the circumstances so established should for a complete chain
without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be consistent with his
guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. Circumstantial evidence should be
strong, convicting, unassailable, leading to the only interference and
conclusion that the crime should have been committed only by the accused and
not give any chance even to doubt about the hands of third parties. In the
present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the above said factors.
Hence, the conviction by the trial Court on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence must go. Further, in support of his arguments, the learned counsel
for the Appellant/Accused has produced the Judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC
1622, wherein it was held that while dealing with circumstantial evidence,
when two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and other to his innocence. The accused is entitled to
have the benefit of doubt which is favourable to him. Further, it was held
that:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1