Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.62 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rama And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 April, 2002
12. Further guidelines have been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rama & others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002 (4) SCC 571 which is as under:
Majjal vs State Of Haryana on 2 July, 2013
13. The guidelines have been issued by three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Majjal Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (6) SCC 798 which is as under:
Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2013
14. The aforesaid observations have been quoted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and Anr Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2014 Cr.LJ 443.
State Of U.P vs Nawab Singh (Dead) & Ors on 3 February, 2004
21. In any case, it is the case of direct evidence, hence there was no need to prove the specific motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime. Motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of crime. Moreover, it takes a back seat in a case of direct evidence. In a case of direct evidence the elements of motive does not play such an important role so as to cause any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. If the eye witnesses are trustworthy and reliable, the motive attributed for the commission of crime may not be of much importance and relevance. [State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Singh (2005) SCC criminal (33)].
Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath vs Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 14 November, 1957
In Chunni Lal Dwarka Nath Vs. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1958 Punj 440 it has been held as under:
Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 April, 2002
27. Though the suggestion made in the cross-examination is not evidence but certainly the same may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the prosecution case, particularly when other evidence establishes the guilt of the accused [(Rajesh Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (4)Mah LJ 267 (Bom)].
Jesu Asir Singh & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 20 August, 2007
28. The question put in the cross-examination to a great extent probabilise the prosecution version. Though questions put in cross-examination are not always determinative in finding an accused guilty, but they are certainly relevant. [Jesu Asir Singh Vs. State, (2007) 12 SCC 19 (24) : AIR 2007 SC 2015].
Babli @ Rajwanti vs State Of Haryana on 28 January, 2010
29. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while appreciating the evidence in the case of Rakesh Kumar alias Babli Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1987 CriLJ 535 are worth noting. The Apex Court in para 9 of the report held thus :