Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 493 (3.47 seconds)
Documents citing Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015

Ram Pratap Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2019

So far as the mobile conversation with the wife of the deceased with Ram Praptap Pandey/applicant-accused is concerned, the same could be the best evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act the prosecution has not made any effort. In this regard. As Hon'ble the Aepx Court in the case of Tomaso Bruno and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 (7) SCC 178, held as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

State By Cbi/Acb vs Shri. B. Dinesh on 30 March, 2022

25. Though in view of the three-Judge Bench judgments in Tomaso Bruno [Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611 : AIR 1986 SC 3] , it can be safely held that electronic evidence is admissible and provisions under Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act are by way of a clarification and are procedural provisions. If the electronic evidence is authentic and relevant the same can certainly be admitted subject to the court being satisfied about its authenticity and procedure for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such as whether the person producing such evidence is in a position to furnish certificate under Section 65-B(4).
Bangalore District Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next