Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979
In Arunachalam Vs. P.S.R.
Sadhanantham, 1979(2) SCC 297 this Court while agreeing with the
views expressed on the aforesaid mentioned decisions of this Court
has thus stated :
Nain Singh And Anr vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 February, 1991
In Nain Singh Vs. State of UP, 1991(2) SCC 432 in which all
the aforesaid decisions as referred to herein above were considered
and after considering the aforesaid decisions on the question of
exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution and after
agreeing with the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions finally
laid down the principle that the evidence adduced by the prosecution
in that decision fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability and
therefore, was highly unsafe to act upon it. In State of U.P. Vs. Babul
Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 this Court, while considering the scope of
Article 136 as to when this Court is entitled to upset the findings of
fact, observed as follows:
State Of U.P vs Babul Nath on 12 August, 1994
In Nain Singh Vs. State of UP, 1991(2) SCC 432 in which all
the aforesaid decisions as referred to herein above were considered
and after considering the aforesaid decisions on the question of
exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution and after
agreeing with the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions finally
laid down the principle that the evidence adduced by the prosecution
in that decision fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability and
therefore, was highly unsafe to act upon it. In State of U.P. Vs. Babul
Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 this Court, while considering the scope of
Article 136 as to when this Court is entitled to upset the findings of
fact, observed as follows:
Som Parkash vs State Of Delhi on 25 January, 1974
In Som Prakash Vs. State of Delhi (1974) 4
SCC 84 it was observed "It is but meet that science-oriented detection
of crime is made a massive programme of police, for in our
technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived of than
denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to crime suppression
and nothing cruder can retard forensic efficiency than swearing by
traditional oral evidence only, thereby discouraging liberal use of
scientific research to prove guilt."
Raghbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 1975
In Raghbir Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 145 while discarding the oral and documentary
evidence laid on behalf of the prosecution is not such as to inspire
confidence in the mind of the court, the Supreme Court observed at
paragraph 11 as follows: