Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.42 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) on 18 September, 2009
In „Rakesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi 2005
(1) JCC 334 and Sunil @ Munna vs. The State (Govt. of NCT),
2010 (1) JCC 388, it was observed that in the absence of
recovery of the knife used by the appellant at the time of
SC 222/18-State vs. Mohd. Tanveer & Ors. Page no. 18
commission of robbery charge under Section 397 IPC cannot be
established. In the present case, indubitably the knife used for
commission of crime was not recovered. Accordingly, in my view,
appellant could not have been sentenced under Section 397 IPC
and Trial Court has erred on this point."
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh vs Republic Of India on 21 January, 2011
In
Rabinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India (2011)
SCC 490, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suraj Pal vs State Of Haryana on 9 November, 1994
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Suraj Pal vs. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 64.