Judgments
CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION versus UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
PARAMJIT SINGH VERSUS DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai versus Tulsyan NEC Ltd.
Centre for Environment & Food Security Versus Union of India & Ors.
Subhash Chand Versus State of Haryana & Ors.
Abrar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Hari Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Subhash Vs. State of Haryana
SHER SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
C.M. SHARMA Vs STATE OF A.P.
“26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story Full Judgment
S. Chandramohan Nair Versus George Joseph and others
M. Chandra Vs. M. Thangamuthu & Anr.
Badri Narayan Singh Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India
State of U.P. Versus Krishna Master & Ors.
Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors
Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana
It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard. So far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain Full Judgment