Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.86 seconds)
Shantilal Dashrath Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2026 cites

Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988

In this regard, in paragraph 21, reference was made to the earlier decision in Kehar Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.), reported in (1988) 3 SCC 609 and it was observed and held that compliance with sub-section (4) of Section 164 of the Code is mandatory and its non-compliance renders the confession not admissible or reliable. Such a defect cannot be cured under Section 463 Cr.P.C. It is a settled position of law that if a part of confession is excluded under any provision of law, the entire confessional statement in all its parts, including the admission of minor incriminating 43 ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:19:47 ::: H. C. SHIV app218.25.doc facts must be excluded unless proof of it is permitted by some other section, such as Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 104 - Cited by 684 - G L Oza - Full Document
1