Judgments - Supreme Court of India
BALU @ BAL SUBRAMANIAM & ANR. Vs. STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY)
To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime and (ii) the crime was actually committed by Full Judgment
KAMAL @ POORIKAMAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
RAJVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN Vs. MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA
PRATAP KISHORE PANDA & ORS. Vs. AGNI CHARAN DAS & ORS.
STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. M/S. KOTHARI & ASSOCIATES
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
RAM SUNDER SEN Vs. NARENDRA @ BODE SINGH PATEL & ANR.
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
K.A.KOTRAPPA REDDY & ANR. Vs. RAYARA M.REDD@ N.R.MANJUNATHA & ORS.
SANGHI BROTHERS (INDORE) PVT LTD Vs. MUKTINATH AIRLINES (P) LTD AND ANR.
M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE & ANR
KRISHIKA LULLA & ORS. Vs. SHYAM VITHALRAO DEVKATTA & ANR
B.S. SHESHAGIRI SETTY & ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.
SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs. NARENDRA GORANI
RATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. INDIRA GANDHI INST. OF M.S. PATNA & ORS.
PRAVEEN KUMAR SAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
N.SUNKANNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.
The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no Full Judgment