| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Previous history of the accused — reliance of — Held, The fact of an earlier conviction may be relevant for the purpose of sentence but cannot be a ground for conviction per se. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence — Essential requirement — the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established— all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused— The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature & should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence — Essential requirement under — Held, there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused — it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence — Duty of the Court — Held, it is the duty of the Court to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events clearly established — & completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence — Duty of the Court — It is always to be kept in mind that the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, must lead only to the conclusion —that there cannot be a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged — & the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal jurisprudence — IPC — S 376(2)(b) — Rape case —Evidence of victim — Relying solely on — Held, if the evidence of the victim is of sterling quality, the conviction can be based on the sole & uncorroborated testimony of the victim — The victim is not an accomplice & her evidence must be treated akin to that of an injured witness — if there is any lingering doubt assurance short of corroboration may be sought from the other evidence on record including the medical evidence. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal jurisprudence — IPC — S 376(2)(b) — Rape case —Rights of the accused — Rape causes the greatest distress & humiliation to the victim — but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation & damage to the accused as well — The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved — Rajoo and others v. State of M.P. — relied upon. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 114-A — Injured witness vis-à -vis rape victim — Evidence of — Evidentiary value — Broad principle — that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened & that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants — but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that — the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration— Rajoo and others v. State of M.P. — relied upon. (Para 11) |
PDF |