Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Santa Bandu vs Emperor on 6 April, 1909

Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar With Gurbachan Singh on 13 July, 1994

In Nari Santa (supra) the accused of that case was charged for the theft and it is said that in the course of investigation the accused produced certain articles and thereafter made a confessional statement and it was in these facts and circumstances it was held that there was no disclosure statement within the meaning of Section 27 as the confessional statement was made only when the articles were already discovered having been produced by the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994

70.However, learned counsel appearing for the appellants relying on the decision in the case of Nari Santa v. Emperor9 and Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh1O vehemently urged that the alleged recovery of blanket, piece of saree and rope said to have been made by the investigating agency at the instance of the appellant Gurbachan Singh in the absence of any disclosure statement and without any pointing out memo of the place of recovery and without the public witness to the alleged recovery could not be treated as valid recovery in the eye of law within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is true that no disclosure statement of Gurbachan Singh who is said to have given information about the dumping of the dead body under the hillock of Khad gaddha dumping ground was recorded but there is positive statement of Rajeshwar Singh, PW 59, Station House Officer of Chutia Police Station who deposed that during the course of investigation Gurbachan Singh led him to Khad gaddha hillock along with an Inspector Rangnath Singh and on pointing out the place by Gurbachan Singh he got that place unearthed by labourers where a piece of blanket, pieces of saree and rassi were found which were 9 AIR 1945 Pat 161 : 46 Cri LJ 613 : 219 IC 391 10 1985 Supp SCC 599: 1985 SCC (Cri) 505 : AIR 1986 SC 1438 119 seized as per seizure memo Ext. 5. He further deposed that he had taken two witnesses along with him to the place where these articles were found. Rajeshwar Singh PW 59 was cross- examined with regard to the identity of the witness Nand Kishore who is said to be present at the time of recovery and seizure of the articles as well as with regard to the identity of the articles seized vide paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 of his deposition but it may be pointed out that no cross-examination was directed with regard to the disclosure statement made by the appellant Gurbachan Singh or on the point that he led the police party and others to the hillock where on his pointing out, the place was unearthed where the aforesaid articles were found and seized. It is true that no public witness was examined by the prosecution in this behalf but the evidence of Rajeshwar Singh PW 59 does not suffer from any doubt or infirmity with regard to the seizure of these articles at the instance of the appellant Gurbachan Singh which on TI parade were found to be the articles used in wrapping the dead body of Urshia. According to the evidence of PW1 and PW 2 as said earlier the saree pieces were part of the saree of Urshia that she was seen wearing by these witnesses, the blanket piece was a part of the blanket which was seen on the takht in the house of the appellant Suresh Bahri and the piece of rope was the part of the rope said to be taken out from the cot kept in the verandah of the house of Suresh.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 424 - Full Document

Sooppy vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2006

"The warrant having been duly signed on authorisation of the District Munsiff, the only other question is whether on the facts as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the offence under Section 225-B, I.P.C., has been made out or not. The facts, as already stated, are that after arrest, the petitioner refused to accompany Crl. R.P.No.1748/2006 7 the process server. The process server afterwards went away to court. Whether mere refusal to accompany the process server will amount to escape or attempt to escape from lawful custody is the question-- 'Santa Singh v. Emperor' AIR 1933 Lah 128 (1) (A) is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner where it has been held that refusal to accompany would not amount to escape or attempt to escape. With respect to the learned Judges, I am unable to agree with their opinion giving the natural meaning to the word "escape" which means getting free, getting clear away from prison or person, the act of the petitioner would undoubtedly, in my opinion, fall within the clause "attempt to escape". His refusal to accompany him necessarily means that he will not go with him and that the process server will have to leave him and go unless force is used. It is, in my opinion, an attempt to escape within the meaning of Section 225-B. Though the charge is only for escape, I find him guilty of attempt to escape. But this alteration in the conviction does not in any way affect the conviction of the petitioner under Section 225-B, I.P.C. In the result, the petitioner will be convicted for the offence under Section 225-B not for escape, but for attempt to escape."
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emperor vs Lavji Mandan on 20 July, 1939

2. It is contended that this section applies only if no express provision is made by the Code for the punishment of abetment, and since the abetment of the commission of an offence by a class of persons exceeding ten is punishable under Section 117, Section 115 cannot apply. This contention finds support in the ruling of the Lahore High Court in Santa Singh v. Emperor [1933] A.I.R. Lah. 660. In that case Bhide J., (sitting alone), held that if Section 117 applied, the offence would not fall under Section 115 ; but he observed (p. 660):
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

In Re: Mammed Beary vs Unknown on 16 July, 1954

4. The warrant having been duly signed on authorisation of the District Munsif, the only other question is whether on the facts as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the offence under Section 225-B, I. P. C., has been made out or not. The facts, as already stated, are that after arrest, the petitioner refused to accompany the process server. The process server afterwards went away to court. Whether mere refusal to accompany the process server will amount to escape or attempt to escape from lawful custody is the question -- 'Santa Singh v. Emperor', AIR 1933 Lah 128 (1) (A) is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner where it has been held that refusal to accompany would not amount to escape or attempt to escape.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1