Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing K.H. Shekarappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2009

Zulfikar Nasir & Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. on 31 October, 2018

In the above case, the Court was dealing with an incident of violence in police custody where two persons lost their lives and several others were injured. The medical evidence clearly showed that the death was homicidal Crl.A.574, 629 and 884 of 2015 Page 51 of 73 and that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon them while in custody. The Court invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act and observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 3 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Palle Sateesh, Guntur Dist. vs P.P., Hyd on 9 November, 2020

In the case of K.H. Shekarappa and others v. State of Karnataka8, while dealing with the evidentiary value of hostile witness, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evidence of hostile witness should not be considered in support of the prosecution case and the same can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether the prosecution case is proved or not, if the same is corroborated by any reliable independent witness. In the instant case, since the prosecution failed to show any corroborative evidence, the 8 2010 (4) SCJ 731 17 evidence of P.W.5 that he did not hear the cries cannot be taken into consideration.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - B K Mohan - Full Document

M Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2014

5. This Court in a similar matter in H.Shivappa v. State of Karnataka [2005(4) Kar.L.J.328] had an occasion to consider the very contentions now urged by the learned Advocate General regarding maintainability of the writ petitions. On a very detailed consideration of the matter, this Court rejected the said contentions and held that the writ petitions were maintainable. I am in respectful agreement with the said view. Suffice to refer to the following observations made therein:
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 10 - H G Ramesh - Full Document

S.Thirumalai Muthusamy vs The State Rep. By on 19 March, 2024

13.12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu case, specifically directed the Judicial Magistrate to verify the injuries on the body of the accused and also to obtain the medical memo before accepting the remand and also to inform the arrest to the relative and friends of the accused. It is the specific case of the relative of the deceased that the learned Judicial Magistrate had acted against the guidelines in favour of the appellants without even recording the statement of the deceased. The defence marked Ex.D.3. In Ex.D.3, the learned Judicial Magistrate submitted his consent to conduct the inquest by the other learned Judicial Magistrate. In the said report also he revealed the above fact. The said remand was made in the early morning at around 5.45 am., At the time, the watchman PW.30 was present. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P.7. He also affirmed the content of the said document. The accused also did not raise any objection and also did not dispute the contents during the cross examination. The said Ex.P.7, disclosed that the deceased reported his body pain to the learned Judicial Magistrate namely, PW.49. The learned Judicial magistrate replied that the police officer could have taken him to hospital. The conduct of the Judicial Magistrate without verify the external injury, without obtaining the Medical Memo and without considering the grievance of the deceased/accused, remanded the accused at 5.45 am.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Thirumalai Muthusamy vs The State Rep. By

13.12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu case, specifically directed the Judicial Magistrate to verify the injuries on the body of the accused and also to obtain the medical memo before accepting the remand and also to inform the arrest to the relative and friends of the accused. It is the specific case of the relative of the deceased that the learned Judicial Magistrate had acted against the guidelines in favour of the appellants without even recording the statement of the deceased. The defence marked Ex.D.3. In Ex.D.3, the learned Judicial Magistrate submitted his consent to conduct the inquest by the other learned Judicial Magistrate. In the said report also he revealed the above fact. The said remand was made in the early morning at around 5.45 am., At the time, the watchman PW.30 was present. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P.7. He also affirmed the content of the said document. The accused also did not raise any objection and also did not dispute the contents during the cross examination. The said Ex.P.7, disclosed that the deceased reported his body pain to the learned Judicial Magistrate namely, PW.49. The learned Judicial magistrate replied that the police officer could have taken him to hospital. The conduct of the Judicial Magistrate without verify the external injury, without obtaining the Medical Memo and without considering the grievance of the deceased/accused, remanded the accused at 5.45 am.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Thirumalai Muthusamy vs The State Rep. By on 19 March, 2024

13.12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu case, specifically directed the Judicial Magistrate to verify the injuries on the body of the accused and also to obtain the medical memo before accepting the remand and also to inform the arrest to the relative and friends of the accused. It is the specific case of the relative of the deceased that the learned Judicial Magistrate had acted against the guidelines in favour of the appellants without even recording the statement of the deceased. The defence marked Ex.D.3. In Ex.D.3, the learned Judicial Magistrate submitted his consent to conduct the inquest by the other learned Judicial Magistrate. In the said report also he revealed the above fact. The said remand was made in the early morning at around 5.45 am., At the time, the watchman PW.30 was present. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P.7. He also affirmed the content of the said document. The accused also did not raise any objection and also did not dispute the contents during the cross examination. The said Ex.P.7, disclosed that the deceased reported his body pain to the learned Judicial Magistrate namely, PW.49. The learned Judicial magistrate replied that the police officer could have taken him to hospital. The conduct of the Judicial Magistrate without verify the external injury, without obtaining the Medical Memo and without considering the grievance of the deceased/accused, remanded the accused at 5.45 am.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next