Devendra Kumar @ Jhunna And Others vs State Of U.P. on 21 January, 2025
Accused Jhunna alias Devendra Kumar claimed in his statement under Section 113 Cr.P.C. that he and his father Chhunna alias Krishna Kumar
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 2404 (1.90 seconds)Ashu Jain vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2025
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 113 of the Cr.P.C. came to be preferred by the applicant which ... applicant preferred application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 113 of the Cr.P.C. came to be rejected, thus
Shravan Kumar Gupta vs Superintendent District Jail And Ors. on 12 September, 1956
under Section 112 has been read over or explained to a person under Section 113 or Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ... provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code thus lay down that, whenever proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are contemplated against
Subhash Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2019
statement of witnesses made under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and then raising presumption contained under section 113-B of Evidence Act, convicted the accused ... basis of medical evidence and statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code raising presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act, was totally illegal
Kul Bhushan vs State on 28 September, 2018
Section 304-B IPC. Offence is said to have been committed on 08.08.1983 and provisions of Section 113-B of Evidence Act and Section ... approach of Trial Court basing its finding on the provisions of Section 113-B Cr.P.C. and Section 304-B IPC is erroneous
Chandra Bhan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 7 September, 2020
Case Crime No. 256 of 2018 under Sections 498A , 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Pipraich, District-Gorakhpur ... strangulation. The applicant is under statutory burden by virtue of Section 113-B Cr.P.C. to explain his innocence but applicant has failed
State Of U.P. vs Jaleel Ahmad & 3 Others on 20 January, 2020
order to attract the presumption as provided under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove ... those facts on the basis of which a presumption under Section 113-B of the Cr.P.C. could be drawn and, thereafter, the onus
Mulaim Singh vs State on 22 May, 1974
made concurrent under the provisions of Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Sukh Bam was convicted in Sessions Trial ... Section 561-A read with Section 397 , Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1969 praying that the sentence awarded is Criminal
Raju Alias Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 November, 2021
accordance with section 398 Cr.P.C. without resorting to the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. directly.
113. In Sohan ... held that once an accused has been discharged, the procedure for enquiry envisaged under Section 398 Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented by prescribing
Munni Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 December, 2021
accordance with section 398 Cr.P.C. without resorting to the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. directly.
113. In Sohan ... held that once an accused has been discharged, the procedure for enquiry envisaged under Section 398 Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented by prescribing