Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.25 seconds)Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008
In Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra, one of the
crucial factors that had led this Court to reverse the
conviction was that the bloodstains on the items
seized in the recovery could not be linked with the
blood of the deceased. This factor was treated as a
serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution.
Shantabai & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2008
"21. In this connection, reference may also be made
to circumstances 9 and 10, relating to the recovery
of the bloodstained earth from the house. The
bloodstained earth has not been proved to be
stained with human blood. Again, we are of opinion
that it would be far−fetched to conclude from the
mere presence of bloodstained earth that earth was
stained with human blood and that the human
blood was of Kamla and Madhusudhan. These
circumstances have, therefore, no evidentiary
value." (emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the five−judge Bench had ruled that in
that case the prosecution needed to prove that the
bloodstains found on the earth or the weapons
were of a human origin and were of the same blood
group as that of the deceased.
Ishwar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 1976
In Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P. [(1976) 4 SCC
355], the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph No.8, held as
follows:
Kartarey And Ors. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 25 September, 1975
In Kartarey v. State of U.P.
this Court emphasized the importance of eliciting the
opinion of the medical witness who had examined
the injuries of the victim:
Jayamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2021
In Jayamma and Another vs. State of Karnataka
[(2021) 6 SCC 213], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at
paragraph No.13, held as follows:
Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 January, 2008
In Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 232], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, at paragraph No.25, held as follows:
The State Of Jharkhand vs Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai on 31 October, 2022
In the judgment cited by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor in State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra
Kumar Rai [(2022) SCC Online SC 1494], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.45 to 48, held as follows: