Judgments - Supreme Court of India
M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.
In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded Full Judgment
TAIYO MEMBRANCE CORP.P.LTD. Vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI & CO.LTD.
J. THANSIAMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.
VICE CHANCELLOR LUKNOW UNIVERSITY Vs. AKHILESH KUMAR KHARE &ANR
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Vs. DEVANDER SAGAR & ORS.
TATA ENG & LOCOMOTIVE CO.LTD Vs. DIRECTOR(RESEARCH)O/B DEEPAK KHANNA &ORS
ARSHAD @ SYED AHMED ARSHAD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
RAIL TRAVELLERS SERVICE AGENTS ASSOCIATION DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Vs. R.K.B.K. LTD. AND ANR.
COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI-I Vs. M/S SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. Vs. STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. Vs. MATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.
NIZAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
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