Prosecution Must Prove Enmity: Mere Averments Not Enough

1980 0 Supreme(Bom) 182

There must be some overt act attributed to the respondent from which it could be reasonably inferred that the Food Inspector could not exercise his duties under the Act. ... Even assuming that the prosecution case that the respondent refused to sell the milk is true, mere refusal is not made an offence under section 16(1)(c). The legislature is specific in spelling out the offence viz. prevention of the Food Inspector from taking sample, and not mere refusal to sell. ... Surprisingly #....

1954 0 Supreme(Raj) 251

It may be that the accused failed to prove the plea taken up by him in his defence but it is enough for the accused to show that the defence put forward by him was not reasonably improbable. In Bhagat Ram vs. ... The mere fact that the money was entrusted to the accused is not by itself sufficient to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove that the accused misappropriated or converted to his own use the said amount. ... If that was riot so, there is no reason w....

Even if one gives those statements a meaning which is most favourable to the Crown, they amount at best to mere " general expressions indicating fear or suspicion of (the prisoner) and not directly related to the occasion of (her) death ". ... The circumstances to which the deceased's statements relate must, said Lord Atkin, " have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence ". Following this principle, I am satisfied that the reception of the proposed evidence under Sec. 32 (1) would #HL_STA....

2024 Supreme(US)(ca11) 248

Guerra was not promoting the killing of people “for no reason whatsoever, but in retaliation for the United States[’] public support of Israel and [its] invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.” ... how many were due to the variance to give Mr. ... The letter agreement also contained limiting language providing that the government’s promise “to not use statements against [Mr. Guerra] made during th[e] proffer d[id] not include #HL_START....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca1) 61

Evid. 801(c) (defining hearsay); United States v. Pena, 24 F.4th 46, 61 (1st Cir. 2022) ("For an out-of-court statement to constitute hearsay . . . the statement must be offered to prove the truth of the matter it asserts."). ... Give me Vic, it's your only out." ... Cantwell initially told Fry that he did not think that Lambert had sent the anonymous message but later decided that it must have come from him. ... Statements of a party-opponent can thus be offered for ....

1992 0 Supreme(Guj) 249

According to him looking to the fact that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case he might have thought it fit not to pursue the matter further and for that reason he might not have examined the witnesses to prove the aforesaid documents In any case Mr. ... P. in a very careless and cavalier fashion and therefore it would be too much to expect the prosection to give explanation for not examining witnesses in the pres....

Delhi High Court

Laxmi Devi, the incident had taken place in her presence there was no reason for her in not giving the details thereof on the very day of the incident. It was also well within her knowledge that there was enemity between her brother Om Prakash and the accused. ... PW12/A does not however give such an impression. It carries sufficient details of the incident. Had she been that nervous, such details would not have appeared in her complaint. 23. ... The parents of the deceased who late....

1985 0 Supreme(Mad) 161

But a complainant cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in the complaint. ... Whether harm was actually caused or not is immaterial. Even the intention to cause harm to the reputation is not a necessary factor to be proved. It is enough, if it is shown that the accused had reason to believe that the imputations are likely to harm the reputation. ... The further question is whether the complaint....

Crimes

But a complainant cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in. the complaint. ... Whether harm was actually caused or not is immaterial. Even the intention to cause harm to the reputation is not a necessary factor to be proved. It is enough, if it is shown that the accused had reason to believe that the imputations are likely to harm the reputation. ... The further question is whether the complain....

1977 0 Supreme(MP) 661

All this must have taken time and therefore, the delay in recording the statements under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by few days will not make the evidence of the prosecution witnesses unreliable. Rajaram v. State of M.P., 1970 JLJ SN 23, Banbir and others v. ... It may be mentioned that mere relationship or enemity is no ground to reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All that is required is that the evidence should be scrutinized with caution and corroboration. ... Thus t....

2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 566

It is observed by the Division Bench in the said decision that specific instances and acts of fraud with evidence have to be pleaded in the plaint. It is further observed that mere statements are not enough. It is further observed that it is not sufficient if just fraud is pleaded and there must be material to show that the fraud is committed.

2020 2 Supreme 755

It is observed by the Division Bench in the said decision that specific instances and acts of fraud with evidence have to be pleaded in the plaint. It is further observed that mere statements are not enough. It is further observed that it is not sufficient if just fraud is pleaded and there must be material to show that the fraud is committed.

2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 148

The appellant was acquitted for the reason that mere contradiction in two statements is not sufficient, but prosecution need to prove falsehood.

2017 0 Supreme(Del) 700

It was submitted that the appellant is attempting to circumvent the legal position as set out in Indian Performing Rights Society Limited v. Sanjay Dalia and Another: 2015 (10) SCC 161 and Ultra Home (supra). According to the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, no basis for the alleged apprehension has been indicated. It was submitted that mere apprehension was not enough as there must be some basis for the said apprehension.

2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 609

But, the enquiry officer cannot test the request for cross-examination on the strength of the reasons. The very fact that some statements of some officers are relied upon is good enough reason for permitting cross-examination. But, insofar as cross-examination is concerned, no justification need be provided in the form of reasons by a delinquent. The very fact that the right of cross-examination is part of the most essential rights is sufficient to grant the request.