Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)Anant Chintaman Lagu vs The State Of Bombay on 14 December, 1959
36) In this case, the three propositions, which were referred to by the
Supreme Court in ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. THE STATE OF BOMBAY (AIR 1960
SC 500) have been established through the materials discussed above.
When sufficient materials are available, which are circumstantial to hold
that the death is the result of poisoning, even though the variety of the
poison was not detected from viscera, it must be held that the poison
must have been administered by the accused person alone and he is liable
to be convicted.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mahabir Mandal And Others vs State Of Bihar on 7 March, 1972
31) In this context, the observation made by the Supreme Court in MAHABIR
MANDAL AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 1972 SC 13 31), which is
relevant, is to be noted.
Padala Veera Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 26 October, 1989
4. PADALA VEERA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS (AIR 1990
SC 79);
Ram Das vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 February, 1977
1. RAM DAS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1977 CRI.L.J.955) ;
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Tarseem Kumar vs Delhi Administration on 18 August, 1994
3. TARSEEM KUMAR VS. THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION (1995 CRI.L.J.4