Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.40 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
2. Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)
Kanhai Mishra @ Kanhaiya Misar vs State Of Bihar on 27 February, 2001
3. Kanhai Mishra alias Kanhaiya Misar v. State of
Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 1113)
Balu Sonba Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 September, 2002
4. Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (AIR
2002 SC 3137)
Alamgir vs State (Nct, Delhi) on 12 November, 2002
5. Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) (AIR 2003 SC 282)
alone this decision of the Constitution Bench has been referred
Crl. A. No. 1346 of 2007 -: 41 :-
while discussing circumstantial evidence.
Kishore Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 August, 1990
(1) Kishore Chand v. State of H.P. (AIR 1990 SC 2140)
(2) G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC
2914)
None of these decisions also, we do note, had specifically
considered the question whether M.G. Agarwal (supra)
dispenses with the requirement of proof of circumstances in a
criminal trial resting on circumstantial evidence beyond doubt
and whether it is sufficient to prove the same by test of
preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case.
State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005
The
observations in the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Nanjot Sandhu
(AIR 2005 SC 3820); Liyakat v. State of Uttaranchal (AIR
2008 SC 1537) and Venketasan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR
2008 SC 2369) appear to have taken the contra view.
Liyakat vs State Of Uttaranchal on 25 February, 2008
The
observations in the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Nanjot Sandhu
(AIR 2005 SC 3820); Liyakat v. State of Uttaranchal (AIR
2008 SC 1537) and Venketasan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR
2008 SC 2369) appear to have taken the contra view.