Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Kaur Sain vs The State Of Punjab on 23 November, 1973

The State vs C. Ronald And Ors. on 1 October, 2004

20.21. Mr. Lal appreciating his difficulty submitted before us that the statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was not put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance has been placed on Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaur Sain v. The State of Punjab, . We are not impressed by this submission. What is required to be put to the accused persons in a examination under Section 313 is a material fact intended to be used against him and not the piece of evidence by which it is proved.
Calcutta High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - G C Gupta - Full Document

Chandrapal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2024

In view of judgment of Kaur Sain Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the statement of DW-1 and DW-2 could not be discarded outrightly when read along with the statement of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 and therefore, both these witnesses are natural witnesses and have stated that they are having shops near the railway crossing where the incident took place and both PW-1 and his father were not there at the spot when two unknown motorcycle-borne assailants fired upon the deceased- Devendra Prakash Gaur. Statement of the defence witnesses is also corroborated by the written statement made by Mahendra Kumar Kaushik (an eye witness) who was later on was assigned as accused that PW-1 and his father were neither travelling in the car nor present at the spot when the incident took place.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Randhir Singh vs State on 15 May, 1980

In Kaur Sain v. The State of Punjab, , a statement made by the accused at the police-station containing an unqualified admission on his part that he had concealed a tin of opium in his house, was being relied upon by the prosecution. However, in his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused had not been asked by the Magistrate to offer any explanation regarding that statement. Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was), rejected that particular circumstance and observed that: "If the State relies in this Court on any particular circumstance as being sufficient to sustain the conviction it would be open to the accused to plead in answer that the particular circumstances was not put to him in his examination under Section 342." The statement of the appellant made on his behalf by his learned counsel in the bail application dated March 13, 197&, cannot, therefore, be read as his admission. No reliance can thus be placed by the prosecution on the said statement.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Des Raj Alias Dass vs State on 17 December, 1999

Learned amices Curiae also placed reli- ance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaur Sain Vs. The State of Punjab . In this case also their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the presumption that defense witnesses always lie and prosecution witnesses always tell the truth is neither justified nor proper. According to the amices Curiae the learned Additional Sessions Judge has seriously erred in not placing any reliance on the testimony of the defense witnesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 26 - D Bhandari - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim on 10 February, 2012

175. Mr. Pasbola, in the said context placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Kaur Sain vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1974 SC 329; Anant B. Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 2583; Inspector of Customs vs. Yash Pal reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 1195 (S.C.) to contend that said decisions clearly reveal importance of examination contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the purpose behind it and that in the event of incriminatory material ought to be put to accused during said examination being not put, then the Court is required to leave the same out of consideration. The learned defence counsel further urged that otherwise placing reliance upon such material would be causing great prejudice to the accused resulting in denial of fair opportunity to meet the material against him. It was urged that the trend of latest decisions reveals that in the event of such a material being not put to the accused, the appellate Court can either send the matter for such purpose to the trial Court or itself put the same to concerned accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 126 - Cited by 18 - P D Kode - Full Document

Manojkumar S/O Yadavrao vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2022

But subsequently, said decision was overruled by the Five Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Smt. Gain Kaur v. State of Punjab referred supra and held that Section 309 IPC is constitutional. The court issued directions to make a provision to deal with such persons who attempt to commit suicide. In most of the countries, such an offence is now removed. Provision 9 (1994) 3 SCC 394 17 regarding punishment for attempt to suicide exists only in a few countries.
Karnataka High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - P N Desai - Full Document

Through Public Prosecutor Delhi vs Jeetu Saini on 28 May, 2014

The act of accused Jeetu Saini as seen and described by PW­4 and PW­7 is sufficient to full fill the requirement of section 300 IPC, which defines the offence of murder. There is no requirement of motive for fixing the liability of accused Jeetu Saini particularly, in view of corroboration by medical and forensic evidence as discussed above. The arguments of the Ld. Defense counsel that case against Jeetu Saini is also State vs. Jeetu Saini & Anr. Page No. 51/53 SC No. 22/1/14 FIR No. 222/08 P.S Vikas Puri at the door of 'may be true' and not 'must be true' is not acceptable as the evidence led by prosecution qua accused Jeetu Saini is free from all reasonable doubts. The DW­1 has tried to save the accused Jeetu Saini but his testimony is not convincing and in view of direct evidence of PW­4 and PW­7 corroborated by other material, much importance can not be given to the testimony of DW­1. There is inherent contradictions between the case put forward by DW­1 and the explanation given by accused Jeetu Saini in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The defense put forward by accused Jeetu Saini is not plausible and his admission regarding presence at or near the spot has rather strengthened the case of the prosecution itself. The Ld. defense counsel has referred to AIR 1974 SC 329 in Kaur Sain vs. State of Punjab and argued that defense witnesses cannot always be taken as untrustworthy. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts and does not come to help of ld. defense counsel. The case against Jeetu Saini for the offence u/s 302 IPC is duly proved on record beyond shadow of any doubt.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . (1) Akhilesh Mishra S/O Sh. Dhan Kant ... on 23 February, 2011

Ld. Counsel for the accused FIR no. 232/05 PS Gokalpuri 13/20 has also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaur Sain v State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 649. In this case also their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the presumption that the defence witnesses always lie and prosecution witnesses always tell the truth is neither justified nor proper. Therefore, I am of the view that the testimony of defence witnesses cannot be disbelieved.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next