RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918/2024
Decision Date: 06-03-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC211

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 RAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI  - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 7672024 INSC 211 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration 1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to statement made u/s. 27 Evidence Act can be admissible, when known to all and not exclusively within knowledge of maker. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 106, 27 – Appellant’s wife found dead with throat slit – Appellant convicted by trial court 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7672024 INSC 211Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration 1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to statement made u/s. 27 Evidence Act can be admissible, when known to all and not exclusively within knowledge of maker. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 106, 27 – Appellant’s wife found dead with throat slit – Appellant convicted by trial court