Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gunduchi Patnaik And Anr. vs State Of Orissa on 26 September, 1984
In the case of Gunduchi Patnaik (supra), P.W. 7. an eye-witness was examined about 13 days after the occurrence though Police was available in the occurrence village and that delay was taken into consideration besides other points.
Bahadul Alias Ghanshyam Padhan vs State Of Orissa on 16 January, 1979
In the case of Bahadul (supra) the recovery memo/seizure list was prepared without recording the statement of the accused as admissible under Section 27. Hence, it was held not to be a case of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Pohalya Motya Valvi vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 1979
In the case of Pohalya (supra) the statement which was recorded under Section 27 relating to discovery was capable of two interpretations; one was exculpatory and the other inculpatory, Apex Court have propounded that in such a case the interpretation which favours the accused should be accepted.
Pandru Khadia vs State Of Orissa on 16 September, 1991
In the case of Pandru Khadia (supra) it was held that prosecution failed to establish that accused while in custody gave information as to the place of concealment of the weapon of offence and gave discovery from such place of concealment in presence of witness. Hence in that case evidence Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not found creditworthy.