Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
P. Mani vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 2006
Obviously, therefore he was
absconding after commission of the offence. In fact, he never
appeared on the scene till his arrest on February 17, 1998. There is,
therefore, abundant evidence to prove that the respondent was
traceless between February 4, 1998 and February 17, 1998. Reliance
placed by counsel on the decision of this Court in P. Mani Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu (2006) 3 SCC 161, is of no avail in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
Section 106 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh on 10 December, 1999
"Such incriminating links of facts could, if at all, have
been only explained by the appellant, and by nobody
else, they being personally and exclusively within his
knowledge. Of late, courts have, from the falsity of
the defence plea and false answers given to court,
when questioned, found the missing links to be
supplied by such answers for completing the chain of
incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the
person concerned with the crime committed (see State
of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471). That
missing link to connect the accused appellant, we
find in this case provided by the blunt and outright
denial of every one and all the incriminating
circumstances pointed out which, in our view, with
sufficient and reasonable certainty on the facts
proved, connect the accused with the death and the
cause for the death of Gracy".
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ram Gulam Chaudhury And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 25 September, 2001
In Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2001)
8 SCC 311; the facts proved at the trial were that the deceased boy
was brutally assaulted by the appellants. When one of them declared
that the boy was still alive and he should be killed, a chhura blow was
inflicted on his chest. Thereafter, the appellants carried away the boy
who was not seen alive thereafter. The appellants gave no explanation
as to what they did after they took away the boy. The question arose
whether in such facts Section 106 of the Evidence Act applied. This
Court held:
Sahadevan @ Sagadevan vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ... on 1 November, 2002
In Sahadevan alias Sagadevan Vs. State represented by
Inspector of Police, Chennai (2003) Vol. 1 SCC 534, the prosecution
established the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of the
appellants from the morning of March 5, 1985 till at least 5 p.m. on
that day when he was brought to his house, and thereafter his dead
body was found in the morning of March 6, 1985. In the background
of such facts the Court observed:
1