Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.44 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Laxman Naik vs State Of Orissa on 22 February, 1994
(1) Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 (2) Rajendra
Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra2 (3)
Purushottam Dashrath Borate and another vs. State of
Maharashtra (decided by the Supreme Court on 8th May
2015 in Criminal Appeal No.1439 of 2013), (4) The
State of Maharashtra vs. Viran Gyanlal Rajput (decided
by the High Court of Bombay at Principal Seat on 16th
February 2015 in Confirmation Case No.3 of 2014 with
Criminal Appeal No.760 of 2014), (5) Vasanta Sampat
Dupare vs. State of Maharashtra3 (6) State of
1 (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684
2 (2012) 4 S.C.C. 37
3 (2015) 1 S.C.C. 253
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2017 01:10:50 :::
cnfcase4.16
17
Maharashtra and another vs. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @
Niraj Ramesh Wakekar and another4 (7) The State of
Maharashtra vs. Shatrughna Baban Meshram (decided by
the High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur on 12th
October 2015 in Criminal Confirmation Case No.01 of
2015 with Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2015) (8) Mangal
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 5 (9) Perumal Perumal
alias Thankachan vs. State of Kerala6 (10) Suresh Surya
Sitaram vs. State of Maharashtra7 (11) Dhananjoy
Chatterjee alias Dhana vs. State of West Bengal8 (12)
Laxman Naik vs. State of Orissa 9 (13) Shivaji @ Dadya
Shankar Alhat vs. State of Maharashtra10
Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2008
(1) Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 (2) Rajendra
Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra2 (3)
Purushottam Dashrath Borate and another vs. State of
Maharashtra (decided by the Supreme Court on 8th May
2015 in Criminal Appeal No.1439 of 2013), (4) The
State of Maharashtra vs. Viran Gyanlal Rajput (decided
by the High Court of Bombay at Principal Seat on 16th
February 2015 in Confirmation Case No.3 of 2014 with
Criminal Appeal No.760 of 2014), (5) Vasanta Sampat
Dupare vs. State of Maharashtra3 (6) State of
1 (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684
2 (2012) 4 S.C.C. 37
3 (2015) 1 S.C.C. 253
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2017 01:10:50 :::
cnfcase4.16
17
Maharashtra and another vs. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @
Niraj Ramesh Wakekar and another4 (7) The State of
Maharashtra vs. Shatrughna Baban Meshram (decided by
the High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur on 12th
October 2015 in Criminal Confirmation Case No.01 of
2015 with Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2015) (8) Mangal
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 5 (9) Perumal Perumal
alias Thankachan vs. State of Kerala6 (10) Suresh Surya
Sitaram vs. State of Maharashtra7 (11) Dhananjoy
Chatterjee alias Dhana vs. State of West Bengal8 (12)
Laxman Naik vs. State of Orissa 9 (13) Shivaji @ Dadya
Shankar Alhat vs. State of Maharashtra10
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980
10. Learned counsel appearing for the accused
11 A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 343
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2017 01:10:50 :::
cnfcase4.16
22
further pressed into service exposition of law by
the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarala
Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra12 and
submits that in a case pf circumstantial evidence,
the circumstances on which the prosecution relies
must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused.
Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983
In support
of his submissions, the learned counsel invites
our attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Machhi Singh and others vs. State
of Punjab13, wherein the Supreme Court has laid
down guidelines to be followed by the Courts while
considering the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances so as to give the appropriate
sentence.