cites: 3854307 doctypes: judgments

Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2022

In the case of Manoj Vs. State of MP.7, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere exhibiting a document, i.e. the DNA report profiling would not prove its contents, which 6 (2023) 16 SCC 357;

Supreme Court of India Cites 140 - Cited by 119 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Gireesan Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2022

In this context reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gireesan Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala2.

Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 15 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Ganga Singh vs State Of M.P on 4 July, 2013

In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3.

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 113 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 17 January, 2006

In this context, we may profitably refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. The State of Maharashtra 4, which reads thus:

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 197 - Full Document

Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

Similarly, we may also profitably refer to the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana5, which is 4 (2006) 10 SCC 92 5 (2011) 7 SCC 130 Page 45 of 73 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:42:18 ::: CR. APEAL 229 OF 2017 COMMON, J.ODT reproduced as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 321 - D Verma - Full Document

Chunthuram vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 October, 2020

Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh [Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733 :

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - H Roy - Full Document

Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs The State Of Bombay.[And Two Connected ... on 22 October, 1954

State of Bombay [Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903 : AIR 1955 SC 104] ).

Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 107 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

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

"39. The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA profiling is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was not examined in evidence and the DNA report was merely exhibited in evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) who undeniably is not connected with the report in any manner. This Court in the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, while dealing with the issue concerning evidentiary value of DNA report, has held that DNA profiling reports cannot be admitted in evidence ipso facto by virtue of Section 293 CrPC and it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied by the expert. The relevant excerpts from the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 37 - Cited by 43 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Pancham vs The State Of Chhattisgarh 57 ... on 4 July, 2019

In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view on the reliability of testimony of prosecutrix in offences under Section 376 of I.P.C., in Deepak Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgrah9, which reads thus:

Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - P R Menon - Full Document

The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Manga Singh on 28 November, 2018

In the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 759, this Court in terms stated that conviction can be rested on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 36 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results