Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.66 seconds)
Manish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 October, 2018 cites

Madan Gopal Kakkad vs Naval Dubey And Anr on 29 April, 1992

In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204, this court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 406 - S R Pandian - Full Document

State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000

135. In the instant case, the recoveries made when the accused persons were in custody Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.699 of 2018 31 have been established with certainty. The witnesses who have deposed with regard to the recoveries have remained absolutely unshaken and, in fact, nothing has been elicited from them to disprove their creditworthiness. Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel for the State, has not placed reliance on any kind of confessional statement made by the accused persons. He has only taken us through the statement to show how the recoveries have taken place and how they are connected or linked with the further investigation which matches the investigation as is reflected from the DNA profiling and other scientific evidence. The High Court, while analyzing the facet of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, upheld the argument of the prosecution relying on State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another[(2001) 1 SCC 652], Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab[(2012) 11 SCC 205], Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and others v. State of Bihar[(2008) 12 SCC 173], and Pramod Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 6 SCC 588].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 853 - Full Document

Emperor vs Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty And Ors. on 19 April, 1911

"As we have already indicated, this question has been considered on several occasions by judicial decisions and it has been consistently held that a confession cannot be treated as evidence which is substantive evidence against a co- accused person. In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. As was observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty a confession can only be used to "lend assurance to other evidence against a co- accused". In re Periyaswami Moopan Reilly. J., observed that the provision of Section 30 goes not further than this: "where there is evidence Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.699 of 2018 38 against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for believing that evidence".
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru[(2005) 11 SCC 600], the Court referred to the initial prevalence of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.699 of 2018 28 divergent views and approaches and the same being put to rest in Pulukuri Kottaya case (supra) which has been described as locus classicus, relying on the said authority, observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 1292 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Sunil Clifford Daniel vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2012

135. In the instant case, the recoveries made when the accused persons were in custody Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.699 of 2018 31 have been established with certainty. The witnesses who have deposed with regard to the recoveries have remained absolutely unshaken and, in fact, nothing has been elicited from them to disprove their creditworthiness. Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel for the State, has not placed reliance on any kind of confessional statement made by the accused persons. He has only taken us through the statement to show how the recoveries have taken place and how they are connected or linked with the further investigation which matches the investigation as is reflected from the DNA profiling and other scientific evidence. The High Court, while analyzing the facet of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, upheld the argument of the prosecution relying on State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another[(2001) 1 SCC 652], Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab[(2012) 11 SCC 205], Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and others v. State of Bihar[(2008) 12 SCC 173], and Pramod Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 6 SCC 588].
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 210 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next