(2018) 9 SCC 242 – (State of Gujarath Vs. Naveen Bhai Chandrakanth Joshi and others) – If it is established that, the accused were possessing bribe money, it is for the accused to explain how bribe money had come into their possession and if they fail to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that, they accepted the bribe.
State of Karnataka represented by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Hassan Vs Sri. Shivegowda(Criminal Appeal No.1322/2016). In a trap case hostility of the complainant cannot have a vectoing effect on the case of prosecution.
Special leave to appeal (Crl.No.2482/2021)filed against the judgement dismissed on 5/4/2021.
(2001) 1 SCC 652 – State, Government of NCT, Delhi Vs. Sunil and another - It is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. It is hangover persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a preposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain articles was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross examination of witnesses or through any other materials to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions". Reiterated in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563.
(1980) Supp SCC 489 – State of U.P. Vs. Shanker. The principle of “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India – Time and again, this Court has pointed out that in this country, it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although this evidence may be true in the main. It is the function of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. It is only where the testimony of a witness is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the court should discard his evidence in toto.
(1978) 4 SCC 161 – Inder Singh and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration) – Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the guideline, not a fetish and guilty men cannot get away with it, because truth suffers from some infirmity when projected through some human processes.
(2017) 6 SCC 1 (Mukesh and another Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Meeting of minds of two or more persons to commit an offence is sine-qua-non to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120-B I.P.C., However, to prove the same by direct evidence is not always possible. Conspiracy and its object can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of accused persons (Para 464 to 468).
It is the duty of the courts to make efforts to find the truth. This is the very object for which courts are created. To search it out, the courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit, to find out the truth. It means on one hand, no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand, to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort, suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused.