Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Dudh Nath Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 11 February, 1981

Ratan S/O. Babhootsingh Rathod vs // on 24 September, 2012

16. Learned Advocate for the appellant also made a reference to the ruling in Dudh Nath Pandey .vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 (para 19) to submit that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:09:13 ::: 17 apeal790.08.odt the plea of alibi can succeed if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A P Bhangale - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 12 January, 2012

But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166: AIR 1981 SC 911; State of Mahrashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, AIR Criminal Appeal No.224-DB of 2008 20 Criminal Appeal No.285-DB of 2008 Criminal Appeal No.299-DB of 2008 1984 SC 63) DW-3 Baljit Kaur has deposed that on 27.2.2006, Gurpreet Singh had appeared in 'Lathe and its operations' examination. His roll No. was 1425. Presence of Gurpreet Singh was marked in the attendance register.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

Munna Singh Vohra vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2012

But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such Crl. Appeal No. 498-DB of 2005 - 9- circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

Gian Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2012

But if the evidence adduced Crl. Appeal No. 614-DB of 2005 - 15- by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166: AIR 1981 SC 911; State of Mahrashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, AIR 1984 SC 63)."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Sabina - Full Document

Joginder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 May, 2012

But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

Avtar Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 4 May, 2012

But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166: AIR 1981 SC 911; State of Mahrashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, AIR 1984 SC 63)"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Prakash on 8 February, 2012

10. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that PW-4 Kali Charan gave different versions at different times and his testimony was not relied upon by the Trial Court to convict the Accused. The Accused had no motive to murder Jayanti. PW-4 Kali Charan was even not present at the spot and Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 4 of 41 his statement was fabricated subsequently to falsely implicate the Accused though he was present at his place of work with DW-1 Bagirath. Reliance has been placed on the authorities reported in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 911, Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 2001 (4) RCR (Crl.)
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 5 - S P Garg - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 February, 2012

8. It was argued that the testimony of the defence witness, DW-2, an eminent forensic scientist and academician, was not discussed or given weightage by the Trial Court. His deposition gave a clear lie to the prosecution version about the cause of death. Nothing could be elicited from him, during cross examination to impeach his credibility about assessment of the medical evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Pandey v State of UP AIR 1981 SC 911 has clearly held that defence witnesses are entitled to same weightage as prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, the Trial Court could not have ignored the testimony of DW-2, which ruled out the involvement of the appellants.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next