Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.54 seconds)
V.K.Mishra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 July, 2015 cites

Sunil Kumar And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 January, 2005

In Sunil Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCC 283; it was held that the question of delay in examining a 23 witness during investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a core of witness to falsely support the prosecution case. As such there was no delay in recording the statement of PW-2 and even assuming that there was delay in questioning PW-2, that by itself cannot amount to any infirmity in the prosecution case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 132 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015

Contending that investigating officer made no efforts to conduct an impartial investigation, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the investigating officer made no efforts to conduct impartial investigation which coupled with the embellishments in the prosecution case regarding the demand of dowry raise serious doubts arise about the prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is a serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer in ascertaining the truth which entitles the accused to urge the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution and investigation under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of U.P., (2015) 1 SCALE 498 and Mussauddin Ahmed vs.State of Assam, (2009) 14 SCC 541.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 287 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State Of Haryana on 9 January, 2015

In Sher Singh @ Partapa vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCR 29, it had been held therein that the use of word ‘shown’ instead of ‘proved’ in Section 304B IPC indicates that the onus cast on the prosecution would stand satisfied on the anvil of a mere preponderance of probability. In other words, ‘shown’ will have to be read up to mean ‘proved’ but only to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thereafter, the word ‘deemed’ used in that Section is to be read down to require an accused to prove his innocence, but beyond reasonable doubt. The ‘deemed’ culpability of the accused leaving no room for the accused to prove innocence was, accordingly, read down to a strong ‘presumption’ of his culpability. The accused is required to rebut this presumption by proving his innocence. The same view was reiterated in Ramakant Mishra @ Lalu etc. vs. State of U.P., 2015 (3) SCALE 186.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 136 - V Sen - Full Document

Kulwant Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2013

In Kulwant Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 4 SCC 177, while dealing with dowry death Sections 304B and 498A IPC in which death was caused by poisoning within seven years of marriage conviction was affirmed. In the said case, the father-in-law was about eighty years and his legs had been amputated because of severe diabetes and mother-in-law was seventy eight years of age and the Supreme Court held impermissibility of reduction of sentence on the ground of sympathy below the statutory minimum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 21 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1