Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)

State Of Taiml Nadu vs Sivarasan Alias Raghu Alias Sivarasa & ... on 31 October, 1996

When specific questions were put to PW­18 regarding accused Ramesh, he deposed that he had come to know from the hospital that husband of deceased was also admitted in the hospital. He denied that he had received DD no. 8 prior to receiving DD no. 11B or that pertaining to present case or that he had gone to hospital on receiving DD no. 8 and found accused Ramesh, husband of deceased admitted there or that said accused was found unfit for S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 22/60 23 statement. He also denied that the doctor had handed over the gastric lavage, fluid and sample seal qua accused Ramesh to him in the hospital. PW­18 was confronted with Mark DX, i.e. MLC of accused Ramesh, however, he denied the receipt of receiving of these articles thereupon. During his subsequent cross­examination, PW­18 stated that he had handed over MLC of accused Ramesh to the IO and shows his inability to state, if the same had been placed on record by the IO. PW­18 admitted that he did not make effort to make inquires from accused Ramesh, during the period investigations of the present case remained with him, and that he had not informed the SDM regarding admission of accused Ramesh in the hospital. PW­18 denied that he had deliberately withheld from placing DD no. 8 and MLC of accused Ramesh on record or that he had deliberately concealed the fact of admission of accused Ramesh in the hospital from the SDM.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - G N Ray - Full Document

Appasaheb And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 January, 2007

In Appasaheb and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :­ "........ In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 568 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 September, 1973

67. It is apparent that the entire investigations have been carried out to conceal the actual truth from the court and to give colour of dowry death to poisoning of deceased Sushma, even though her husband Ramesh was also afflicted by poisoning for which, no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl. Appeal no. 22 of 1973 DOD 24.09.1973 that :­ "...... Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principal has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 946 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1   2 Next