Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)
Kokilaben vs State Of on 15 March, 2013 cites

Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar à Appellants vs State Of Bihar & Anr. à Respondents on 4 January, 2007

36. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant had not been able to prove his alibi. He did not examine any witness to support his case. He did not offer any explanation whatsoever as to why for about a month he was absconding. In a situation of this nature where admittedly the husband, wife and children were residing in one room, the prosecution having been able to prove that apart from the minor children, at the time of occurrence it was he and the deceased alone who were residing in the house, it was for the appellant to prove that how the deceased had met her death. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar vs. State of Bihar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 92 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chander Prakash @ Chander vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 16 March, 1995

By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 3 SCC 90]. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellants (Exts. P-15 and P-16) is hot admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 105 - S D Pandit - Full Document
1   2 Next