J.Pannerselvan vs State Rep. By on 16 March, 2022
1.Ranjit Mondal and Sajal Barui
and vs. State (1997 C.L.J 1586);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.39 seconds)Documents citing
Ranjit Mondal And Sajal Barui And Etc. vs State on 31 January, 1997
48. Reliance Was Further Placed Upon ... vs . State (Delhi on 7 May, 2015
82. The case of the accused is that he was falsely implicated at the
instance of Sh. K.J. Alphons, as Sh. Alphons was having a
grudge against the accused for the reason that the accused did
not use to follow the illegal dictates of Sh. Alphons. The
accused has not led any cogent evidence in order to substantiate
this plea of false implication at the instance of Sh. K.J. Alphons.
He has made this assertion only in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an
evidence. This was so held in a case reported as Ranjit
Mandal Vs. State 1997 Cr.L.J. 1586. Therefore, this plea of
the accused cannot be accepted.
In Re: State vs Pinakin Dinesh Etc. on 21 September, 2011
69. During the course of argument, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Pinakin
Dinesh submitted that these answers cannot be used against Pinakin Dinesh.
While placing reliance upon the law laid down in Ranjit Mandal v. State 1997
Cr.L.J 1586 (CAL), The Public Prosecutor v. B. Ramamurthy 1973 Cr.L.J
1761 (AP) and Munshi v. State 1968 Cr.L.J 1332 it was argued that the stand
taken by accused Prabhu Dayal cannot be taken as evidence against co
accused i.e. Pinakin Dinesh. The submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel
are correct as is the reliance placed upon him upon the law discussed above.
Though, it cannot be used as evidence against accused Pinakin Dinesh however,
the answers so elicited can be used for a collateral purpose i.e. as a touch stone
to test the credibility of any piece of evidence educed by the prosecution.
In Re: State vs Pinakin Dinesh Etc. on 24 September, 2011
69. During the course of argument, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Pinakin
Dinesh submitted that these answers cannot be used against Pinakin Dinesh.
While placing reliance upon the law laid down in Ranjit Mandal v. State 1997
Cr.L.J 1586 (CAL), The Public Prosecutor v. B. Ramamurthy 1973 Cr.L.J
1761 (AP) and Munshi v. State 1968 Cr.L.J 1332 it was argued that the stand
taken by accused Prabhu Dayal cannot be taken as evidence against co
accused i.e. Pinakin Dinesh. The submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel
are correct as is the reliance placed upon him upon the law discussed above.
Though, it cannot be used as evidence against accused Pinakin Dinesh however,
the answers so elicited can be used for a collateral purpose i.e. as a touch stone
to test the credibility of any piece of evidence educed by the prosecution.
3.2000 (D49) (Ex. P51) vs State Of A. P on 15 October, 2016
262. I have gone through the testimonies of DW3, DW4 and
DW5. The contrary statements have been given by the
said defence witnesses as well as accused Yashdeep
Singh Kataria in his statement recorded under Section
313 Cr. P. C. DW4 Pradeep Singh Kataria and DW5
Mandeep Singh Kataria, brothers of accused Yashdeep
Singh Kataria have specifically deposed that during the
year 19961997, their father fell ill. The expenditure on
the treatment of their father was borne by the family as a
CC No.26/11 226/246
227
whole and also from the savings of their father. The
accused Yashdeep Singh Kataria stated in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that medical
expenses of the treatment of his father were borne out of
the sources of his father and at the same time he also
stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C., that
he can produce the documents in this regard. However,
the accused did not produce any document in this regard
nor he stepped into the witness box to substantiate his
plea. He has taken this plea only in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., which is not an
evidence. This was so held in a case reported as Ranjit
Mandal Vs. State, 1997 Crl. L. J. 1586.
1