Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 264 (4.02 seconds)
Documents citing Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952

Digambar S/O. Baburao Dasre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 December, 2021

exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant Govind v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR 1091 at p.1111 and Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab 1953 SCR 94. The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Budhan Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 25 April, 2006

"This Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab has held that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed; mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient. It has to be proved that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed, and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false"
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Digamber Baburao Dasre on 13 December, 2021

exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant Govind v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR 1091 at p.1111 and Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab 1953 SCR 94. The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

In Re: Kandhapadayachi Alias ... vs Unknown on 29 April, 1970

33. The above limited definition of ' confession' given by their Lordships of the Privy Council has been followed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two cases, Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab , and Om Prakash v. State of U.P. , In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab , where the question was whether the accused had administered poison to her husband, the accused made a statement that her husband had consumed the poison himself mistaking it for another medicine. Read as a whole, it was of an exculpatory character. But the prosecution sought to rely on that as showing that the accused was present when the poison was consumed by her husband and would incriminate her. But their Lordships pointed out that the statement as a whole was exculpatory in character and did not amount to a confession. They relied on the observations of the Privy Council.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahavir Raghunathrao Hulungare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 September, 2022

13. Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self- exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part ofthe admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant v. State of U. P. (1) 1953 CriLJ 129 and Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab [1953] S. C 94. The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - M N Jadhav - Full Document

Sri Anil Tripura vs The State Of Tripura ----Respondent on 5 April, 2022

23. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observations and principles followed in disposing of the cases of Palvinder Kaur (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (supra), in the instant case also, it transpires that the method and manner in which the dead body of the victim girl [Priya], was dealt with and disposed, might raise some suspicious circumstances, but, according to this court these facts would not be enough to draw a positive conclusion that the child intentionally or Page 14 unintentionally was given "dao" blow by the appellant no. 2 since there is no direct or indirect evidence that it was the appellant no. 2 who had hit the child by the "dao". Cases are not unknown where such death could be accidental also and the appellants had acted in a peculiar manner regarding disposal of the dead body for the reasons best known to them. One of these might well be that the appellants were afraid of a false case being started against them. Life and liberty of persons cannot be put in jeopardy on mere suspicion, howsoever strong.
Tripura High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

Mohan S/O. Nagorao Dasre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 December, 2021

exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant Govind v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR 1091 at p.1111 and Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab 1953 SCR 94. The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next