Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Krishna Gopal & Anr on 12 August, 1988
Therefore, the variance in the dimensions of two injuries was obvious. Thus, there appears no contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence of Manohar (P.W. 3). The other injuries sustained by Pyare Lal were gun shot wounds and abrasions which were indisputedly caused by fire arm and fall on the ground. Moreover, slight confusion over one injury would not dilute the prosecution case, vide State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, 1988 (2) JT (SC) 544.
Section 162 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors on 31 January, 2003
47. It was further contended that the investigation was tainted and some corrections were made in the case diary during investigation on the pointing out of the Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the statement of Investigating Officer, who stated that he made certain correction in the case diary, which were clerical error. The above correction do not materially affect merit of the case. Assuming that there was some defects in the investigation, it was not fatal to the prosecution, as the presence of witnesses on the spot was natural and probable and their evidence was also supported by medical evidence, FIR and other circumstances of the case. Therefore, the defects in investigation is not fatal (vide Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, 2003 (2) JT (SC) 1 : (AIR 2003 SC 1164).