Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)
State Of West Bengal vs Saiful Ali & Ors on 6 October, 2023 cites

Babubhai Udesinh Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2006

In Babubhai Udesinh Parmar vs. State of Gujarat5 only 15 minutes was given to the 3 (2004) 7 SCC 779 4 AIR 1957 SCR 953 5 (2006) 12 SCC 268 44 accused prior to recording of confession. In the present case the accused had been sent for segregation on 18.06.2013 and his confession was recorded on the next day. Fact that the accused had been taken out for drawing of blood at 3:00 p.m. on 18.06.2013 cannot be a ground to hold that substantial time for reflection had not been given to him. Even if the segregation period is calculated from the time when the appellant was taken out to collect the blood, the confession was recorded on the next day at 02:30 p.m., that is, after expiry of sufficient period for reflection of almost 24 hours.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Devendra Prasad Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 1978

77. Davendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P.6 is also distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the Magistrate had assured the accused that he would not be remanded to police lockup if he did not make the confession. Reason for the appellant making the confession is also evident from the tenor of his confession. In his confession he stated that 'something got into him' and he committed the crime. Naturally he felt remorse and confessed. Materials on record show the appellant had been remanded to judicial custody and was sent for reflection till the next day. Mere identification by a police officer prior to recording of confession cannot be a ground to hold that the judicial remand had not been followed in practice. Non-examination of SI Apurba Mondal who identified Saiful before Magistrate also does not affect the prosecution case. P.W. 31 during cross-examination clarified the role of the said police officer. His examination is not necessary for 6 (1978) 4 SCC 474 45 unfolding of the prosecution case. However, it was open to the defence to make a prayer before the trial Court to summon the said police officer under section 311 Cr.P.C. if it thought fit and proper. The defence did not take recourse to such action. Under such circumstances, it cannot be argued that non-examination of the said police officer would lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - J Singh - Full Document

Rahul vs The State Of Delhi Ministry Of Home ... on 7 November, 2022

In Rahul vs. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and Another13 the Apex Court held the underlying basis of the findings of 11 The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Forensic DNA analysis - a primer for courts, [2017] PL 29,30 12 The Royal Society of Edinburgh (n 3), 5 13 (2023) 1 SCC 83 59 DNA report must be gone into. It also discarded the report as there was delay in dispatch of samples for CFSL examination. Exhibit 29a clearly sets out the process of DNA profiling through DNA isolation by organic extraction method and amplification by multiplex PCR method for Short Tandem Reports (STRs) and amelogenin loci the amplified products along with controls were run on automated sequencer and analysed using GeneMapper ID software with respect to Standard Ladder. STR report findings match the allelic peaks against the respective loci in the electropherograms for the relevant samples. Objections raised are ambivalent and may be explained away. They may impact probability of the conclusions but do not render them wholly unacceptable. Moreover, the hair and other articles were kept inside a large packet which bore the seal of the hospital improbabilising substitution.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 37 - Cited by 43 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Nishi Kant Jha vs State Of Blihar on 2 December, 1968

136. Let me examine the exculpatory aspect of Saiful's confession qua Ansar in this perspective. Evidence on record shows Ansar had the 17 Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 347 (para 14 to 23) 73 key to the 8 bigha plot. In his confession, Saiful claimed that he followed the victim with the key of the boundary and proceeded to commit the crime. This evasive statement that 'he collected the key' is inconsistent with the evidence on record that the keys were kept with Ansar. On the fateful day, they worked in the bherries i.e., water bodies. After the work was complete it is claimed that Ansar had left the spot.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 68 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1   2 Next