Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 263 (7.26 seconds)
Documents citing Prithipal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Anr. Etc on 4 November, 2011

Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 26 June, 2023

iv) Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10 "79. Both the courts below have found that the appellant-accused had abducted Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra. In such a situation, only the accused CRL.A.488/2019 & connected appeals Signature Not Verified Pages 58/59 Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:26.06.2023 19:04:11 person could explain as to what happened to Shri Khalra, and if he had died, in what manner and under what circumstances he had died and why his corpus delicti could not be recovered. All the appellant-accused failed to explain any inculpating circumstance even in their respective statements under Section 313 CrPC. Such a conduct also provides for an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The fact as to what had happened to the victim after his abduction by the accused persons, has been within the special knowledge of the accused persons, therefore, they could have given some explanation. In such a fact situation, the courts below have rightly drawn the presumption that the appellants were responsible for his abduction, illegal detention and murder."
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

J.S.N.Nimmu Vasanth vs R.Mallika on 9 September, 2015

45. The deaths due to non wearing of helmets in Tamilnadu has shockingly increased from 1670 in 2005 to 6419 in 2014. The enormous increase in loss of precious lives denotes an extraordinary situation which is required to be addressed by unconventional orders traveling beyond provisions of the Act as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10 that while dealing with an unprecedented case, the Court has to innovate the law and may also pass an unconventional order keeping in mind that an extraordinary fact situation requires extraordinary measures. Paragraph-50 of the judgement is usefully extracted as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2023

81. The defence counsel has urged that the punishment should always be proportionate/commensurate to the gravity of the offence. In the instant case, it is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Hence he prays for a reduction of sentence of imprisonment for a term less than life imprisonment (Vide Vadivelue Thevar v. State of Madras22, Kunju v. State of T.N.23, Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B24, Mahesh v. State of M.P.25, Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab26 and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana27".
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Cbi vs . Santoshanand Etc. Vinod Goel on 8 December, 2014

677. This provision has come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1956 in Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. the State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404, the State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2988, Sunder @ Sundararajan vs. State by Inspector of Police AIR 2013 SC 777, Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka 2012 (4) JCC 2667 and also recently in Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2012 Volume I SCC 10 and the relevant Para No.29, in Prithipal's case reads as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 152 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raksha Jindal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 March, 2015

477. There exist profusion of authorities and consensus of judicial opinion that the evidence of a person, who could have been arrayed as an accused or who has been improperly/illegally discharged, is admissible in evidence at trial. Therefore, the fact that Brij Mohan was not tendered pardon by the prosecution in accordance with the procedure established under the Code or even if the discharge of Brij Mohan is held to be illegal, his evidence tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 166 - Cited by 46 - S Mridul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next