New Register for Workshop on How to start for NABARD 2025 (Stepwise Plan) - Apr 26, 7 PM

    Question

    In which case, the Supreme Court described five golden

    principles laid down in Hanumant v. State of M.P., Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence
    A Sawal Das v. State of Bihar Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Latu Mahto and another v. State of Bihar Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Madhu v. State of Karnataka Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    The Hanumant case laid down the 5 golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. These 5 principles are as follows: 1. Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. Fact so established should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty. 3. Facts should be of conclusive nature. 4. The fact should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the must have been done by the accused. Sawal Das v. State of Bihar:The only evidence given of what could have taken place inside the room was the cry of “bachao bachao” although there was some understandable variation between accounts of witnesses as to whether the murdered woman also utter some more words showing that she was actually killed. The evidence of witnesses about what the children said or did was admissible under section 6 of the Indian evidence act. Madhu v. State of Karnataka: It is a settled legal proposition that evidence collected even by improper or illegal means is admissible if it is relevant and its genuineness stands proved. However, the court may be cautious while scrutinizing such evidence. In such a fact-situation, it may be considered a case of procedural lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and it should not be discarded unless the appellant satisfies the court that any prejudice has been caused to him.

    Practice Next