Judgments - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU Vs. STATE(NCT OF DELHI)
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
RAMESH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
SWEETY GUPTA Vs NEETY GUPTA & ORS
MOTILAL VORA & Anr. V/s SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY & ANR
Munna Beg Alias Mohammad Beg & Another V/s State Of U.P
Dileep Verma V/s State Of U.P
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA Vs. AJIT SETH AND ORS.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJIV JASSI
CHAMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND
GAJANAN DASHRATH KHARATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AIR CUSTOMS OFFICER IGI NEW DELHI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR DHAMIJA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM KAILASH @ RAM VILAS
POOJA PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
This Court in Babubhai (supra) while examining the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code, did recall its observations in Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, that it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well as of the courts to ensure, that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the Full Judgment
SUDIP KR. SEN @ BILTU Vs. STATE OF W.B. & ORS.
AWADESH KUMAR JHA @ AKHILESH KUMAR JHA & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR
KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI
it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is Full Judgment