Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 86 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Kishore Bhadke vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2017

State vs . Jaspal on 30 August, 2019

Relevant para of judgment Kishore Bhadke vs State of Maharashtra (based of last seen evidence) "16. The prosecution has also established the vital circumstances of last seen together. The evidence is given by PW11 & PW12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with the evidence of PW-15, who has spoken about the telephone call received from Nalini and pursuant to which Raman left his house in her presence with relevant Sessions Case No. 440274/2016 State Vs. Jaspal Page No.19/50 documents/papers. The courts below have accepted her version as truthful and reliable. That evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of some minor discrepancies pointed out during the court of argument. The finding recorded by the two courts below with regard to PW15 about the truthfulness of her version is unexceptional. The evidence of PW11 corroborates the fact that deceased Raman had gone to bank for withdrawing cash amount and then proceeded to the house of Nalini accused No.1. He has deposed that Raman went inside the house of Nalini and saw accused No.2,3,4 and 6 standing near the cattle shed of Nitin Rai. While returning back, he saw accused No.5 standing near the water tank.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Anil Puri on 21 October, 2019

Relevant para of judgment Kishore Bhadke vs State of Maharashtra (based of last seen evidence) "16. The prosecution has also established the vital circumstances of last seen together. The evidence is given by PW11 & PW12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with the evidence of PW-15, who has spoken about the telephone call received from Nalini and pursuant to which Raman left his house in her presence with relevant Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 40/90 documents/papers. The courts below have accepted her version as truthful and reliable. That evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of some minor discrepancies pointed out during the court of argument. The finding recorded by the two courts below with regard to PW15 about the truthfulness of her version is unexceptional. The evidence of PW11 corroborates the fact that deceased Raman had gone to bank for withdrawing cash amount and then proceeded to the house of Nalini accused No.1. He has deposed that Raman went inside the house of Nalini and saw accused No.2,3,4 and 6 standing near the cattle shed of Nitin Rai. While returning back, he saw accused No.5 standing near the water tank.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . (1) Vivek @ Vicky, on 5 April, 2018

11. Relevant para of judgment Kishore Bhadke vs State of Maharashtra (based of last seen evidence) "16. The prosecution has also established the vital circumstances of last seen together. The evidence is given by PW11 & PW12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with the evidence of PW-15, who has spoken about the telephone call received from Nalini and pursuant to which Raman left his house in her presence with relevant documents/papers. The courts below have accepted her version as truthful and Sessions Case No. 440289/2016            State Vs. Vivek @ Vicky & Anr.            Page No. 29/51 reliable. That evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of some minor discrepancies pointed out during the court of argument. The finding recorded by the two courts below with regard to PW15 about the truthfulness of her version is unexceptional. The evidence of PW11 corroborates the fact that deceased Raman had gone to bank for withdrawing cash amount and then proceeded to the house of Nalini accused No.1. He has deposed that Raman went inside the house of Nalini and saw accused No.2,3,4 and 6 standing near the cattle shed of Nitin Rai. While returning back, he saw accused No.5 standing near the water tank.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Murali vs State By Kalasipalyam Police Station on 7 September, 2020

14. As regards the seizure of weapons on the basis of the confession statements said to have been made by the accused, the trial court appears to have 20 committed a mistake. Before dealing with this aspect it is necessary to refer to one argument of the appellants' counsel. He argued that recovery on the basis of confession statements made by the accused at a time has no value. It is true that in the judgments cited by him in this context, it is held that recovery of incriminating material pursuant to confession statement made by all the accused cannot be considered. But the Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharastra (AIR 2017 SC 279) has held that the disclosure made by the accused separately in quick succession is admissible in evidence according to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, if such disclosure thereafter led to discovery of incriminating articles. It is to be stated in this context that there is no any rule or law as such that disclosure made by two or more accused before the investigation officer leading to discovery of incriminating material is inadmissible. If the two or more accused make 21 statements, they must do so one after another, and their statements must lead to discovery of incriminating material. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, if the investigation officer goes to a place where the accused might have hidden the incriminating materials or weapons and recovers them, it is not understandable as to why such statements and the recovery become inadmissible if the information disclosed by accused is credible. If the independent witnesses to the recovery lend support to the evidence of the investigation officer in this regard, the prosecution case becomes further strengthened. Therefore this argument cannot be accepted. However in the case on hand the recovery made at the instance of the appellants should be disbelieved for some other reason.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Rakesh. G. @ Bheema on 22 October, 2021

The decision in Kishore Bhadke case is the appeal preferred by the accused against the order of the conviction. The Apex Court has mainly discussed the motive and the recovery in this case. The motive in Kishore Bhadke was the land dispute. Based on the evidence of two witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.15 the trial court recorded the conviction. The defense of the accused was that no documentary evidence to buttress the factum of land dispute between deceased and accused No.1 have been brought on record. The trial court and the High Court had found that the absence of documentary evidence and absence of suit between the parties, regarding such transaction was not fatal. The oral evidence on record was enough. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex court. This is not the situation in the present case. The motive alleged in the present case is that the accused were addicted to bad vices, to fulfill their illegal needs they kidnapped deceased for ransom, thereafter murdered him. So far as the alleged motive is concerned absolutely there is no iota of evidence. Even the motive could not be gathered from the surrounding circumstance. The motive alleged in this case is very feeble. Hence, the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
Bangalore District Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next