Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.88 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Indra Dalal vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2015
In the
case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana1, this Court has
considered the conviction based only on confessional statement
and recovery of vehicle used in the crime. In the said case, while
setting aside the conviction, this Court has held in paragraphs
16 & 17 as under:-
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 1970
14. Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and
prosecution would be required to prove each and every
circumstance in the chain of circumstances so as to complete the
chain. It is true that in most of the cases, it is not possible to
prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct
evidence but the same can be inferred from the circumstances
____________
Page No.24/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.108, 165, 173, 174, 149 and 169 of 2013
giving rise to conclusive or irresistible inference of an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. It
is held in Noor Mohd. Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of
Maharashtra [(1970) 1 SCC 696 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 274 : AIR
1971 SC 885], that: (SCC pp. 699-700, para 7).
Jaharlal Das vs State Of Orissa on 12 April, 1991
“45. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of
decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and
every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by
reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved
must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn
and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court
has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending
largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger
that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof.
The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the
chain of events have been established clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has
also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain
of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances
cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be
watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take
____________
Page No.21/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.108, 165, 173, 174, 149 and 169 of 2013
the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may
happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal
proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long
mental distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and
the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. (Jaharlal
Das v. State of Orissa [(1991) 3 SCC 27 : 1991 SCC (Cri)
527])”