Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Surendra Kumar & Anr. VERSUS State of U.P.

Appeal (Crl.), --- of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 20, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Ramcharan Patel Vs. State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal, 1066 of 1998, Judgment Date: Jan 07, 2021

Law laid down - (1) Section 302, 120B and Section 201 of IPC : Vikki Bai was not traceable from matrimonial house and hence her father-in-law lodged "Gum Insaan" report in Police Station. Father of Vikki Bai also lodged the report that she is murdered by appellants. Body or remains of Vikki Bai could never be traced. The court below held the appellants as guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Held : Conclusion of guilt must be based on circumstances Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU Vs. STATE(NCT OF DELHI)

Appeal (Crl.), 1460 of 2011, Judgment Date: Jan 20, 2017

The chain leading to the sole conclusion that it is the accused persons and nobody else who had committed the crime is not established by the three circumstances set forth above, even if all of such circumstances are assumed to be proved against the accused. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Sanwat Khan and Anr. vs. State Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JOSE @ PAPPACHAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 919 of 2013, Judgment Date: Oct 03, 2016

In Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 745, one of us (Hon. Ghose,J.) while dwelling on the imperatives of circumstantial evidence ruled that the same has to be of highest order to satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. It was underlined that such circumstantial evidence should establish a complete unbroken Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PRAB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Murder

Appeal (Crl.), 261 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jun 29, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAM SUNDER SEN Vs. NARENDRA @ BODE SINGH PATEL & ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 1793-1794 with 1795-1796 of 2011, Judgment Date: Oct 15, 2015

It is a settled law that when prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the following tests to be clearly established: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NIZAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Appeal (Crl.), 413 of 2007, Judgment Date: Sep 04, 2015

Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 569 of 2014, Judgment Date: May 29, 2015

Insofar as circumstances leading to connecting the appellant with the said murder are concerned, following evidence has come on record: (i) Brother of the deceased i.e. PW-9 had seen the appellant working in the fields which are adjacent to the fields of victim's family where Sunita had gone to collect Barseem. (ii) The appellant was keeping an evil eye on the deceased. (iii) The sickle, weapon used in the murder, Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

D. VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Appeal (Crl.), 787 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

He has admitted the receipt of the bribe amount. The only effort at proving his innocence has been the submission that receipt of the entire sum was on behalf of Accused 1, no part of which was demanded by Accused 2 for his own keeping and consumption. This Court has ratiocinated in significant length and detail on the nature of evidence commonly encountered in trap cases Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BHIM SINGH & ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Appeal (Crl.), 2146 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

  -The demand for dowry can be made at any time and not necessarily before marriage.- -Unlike as in Section 304- B where the court "shall presume" dowry death, when the prosecution has established the ingredients, under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, discretion has been conferred upon the Court wherein it has been provided that the Court may Full Judgment