Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 7467 (1.92 seconds)

Shanti And Anr. vs The State on 4 May, 1977

approach the subject of confessions and particularly of judicial confessions, as though every record or evidence of confession is to be treated as 'prima ... explain to the confessant that he was not bound to make a confession and that any confession made by him would be used as evidence
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shanti And Anr. vs The State on 4 May, 1977

approach the subject of confessions and particularly of judicial confessions, as though every record or evidence of confession is to be treated as 'prima ... explain to the confessant that he was not bound to make a confession and that any confession made by him would be used as evidence
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sidheshwar Nath vs Emperor on 11 December, 1933

confession by oral testimony. The argument is that the Magistrate was bound I to record the confession under Section 164 , (Criminal P.C., and that ... Section 164 . The statements did not purport to have been recorded under Section 164 and even if they could be regarded as confessions the learned
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953

recording their confessions on 31st August and the confessions were in fact recorded on 1st September 1952. Both of them retracted their confessions ... complied with In recording a confession, the confession would become inadmissible. The admissibility of the confession was attacked also on other grounds. Mr. Justice Bennett
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next