Shivaji chintappa patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, Air 2021 Sc 1249

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Shivaji chintappa patil...

The court laid down certain guidelines which must be followed before a case against an accused can be fully established:

(a) circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn must be established fully,

(b) there should be consistency between the facts established and the hypothesis of guilt of the accused,

(c) the circumstances must be conclusive in nature,

(d) all possible hypothesis except the one to be proved must be eliminated,

(e) the chain of evidence must be complete as to there can be no reasonable ground for a conclusion pointing the innocence of the accused, showing that in all possibility, the accused has performed the act.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Baby Manji Yamada Vs. Union of India, AIR (2009)

The case of Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, AIR (2009) SC 84, addressed the legal complexities of cross-border surrogacy. Following the separation of a Japanese couple before the birth of Baby Manji through a surrogacy agreement with an Indian surrogate, the Supreme Court prioritized the child’s welfare, directing Read more »

Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act

In Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC (JV) vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2058/2012), the Supreme Court upheld the arbitral tribunal's award, emphasizing minimal judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It reiterated that courts do not act as appellate bodies and Read more »

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.