STATE OF GOA v. SANJA Y THAKRAN & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 313
- Constitution of India art. 136
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Built from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; l f (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and D ( 4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Para 13) E State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC ll4; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 706; Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC ll6; Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. F State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343, referred to. ....
1.2. While exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arriv~ at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person G and therefore, the decision is to be characteried as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below. (Para 15) (519-A-B)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313; Constitution of India — art. 136.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 09 Jan 2002. The bench was B N AGRA WALANDP P NAOLEKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Another 16 relationships are under human verification and not counted above.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.
Later judgments that treat this case
- Not followedklhc010123152005_1_2009-11-05
- Not followedklhc010109042006_1_2010-01-13
- Relied onaphc010005042009_1_2025-12-22
- Relied ongahc040016202023_1_2026-02-13
- Relied onodhc010246212005_1_2024-02-15
- Relied onphhc010105282004_1_2025-05-22
- Relied onaphc010301842009_1_2025-12-23
- Relied on2011_1_997_1061