Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.29 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Pratap vs State Of U.P on 22 December, 1972
In Pratap Vs. State of U.P.; AIR 1976 SC 966 prosecution is to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas accused is to prove only till establishing preponderance of probabilities.
Veer Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P on 10 December, 2013
While appreciating evidence in criminal administration of justice the principle propounded for it in Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.; 2014 (84) ACC 681, legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity, or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses, but quality of their evidence, which is important. As there is no requirement under the law of evidence that particular number of witness is to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity, which determines. The adequacy of evidence as has been propounded under Section 134 of Evidence Act. As a general rule, Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, provided he is wholly reliable. Testimony of witness, cogent, credible and trustworthy having ring of truth, deserves its acceptance.
State Of Maharashtra Vs. Respondent: ... vs Sukhdev Singh Alias Sukha And Others on 15 July, 1992
Under Cr.P.C. legislation has given Section 313 and Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another, Death Reference No. 1 of 1989 with Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1990, decided on 15.07.1992 propounds "Section 313 of the Code is a statutory provision which embodies the fundamental principle of fairness based on maxim of audi alteram partem. It is trite law that attention of accused is specifically invited to inculpatory piece of evidence of circumstances laid on record with a view to give him an opportunity to offer explanation, if he chooses to do so. The section imposes a heavy duty on the Court to take great care to insure that the incriminating circumstances rather put to the accused and his response solicited. The word "shall question" clearly brings out the mandatory character of clause and caste an imperative duty on Court and confer a corresponding right to accused to offer an explanation for such incriminating material appearing against him which has been surfaced on record.
Lila Ram vs State Of Haryana on 11 December, 2012
Dead body was recovered in pursuance of appraisal made by Wahid, regarding last seen of victim with accused Gulzar, near above place of recovery, in close proximity of time, and before it there was no clue or trace of victim to informant and other family members. Though, there is a bid difference regarding timing of registration of case crime number which has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for defence that this witness has apprised recovery at about 01.00 P.M. and thereafter registration of case crime number, whereas this case crime number was got lodged at 00.05 hours. This perception and telling about time by a person, who was under great agony and anxiety because of this rape and murder of a tiny child, is of no material significance, rather it is a natural variation to be ignored. Because Hon'ble Apex Court in Lila Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2000 SCC (Cri.) 222 has propounded that minor embellishment and trivial discrepancies are usual in a witness's statement. In spite of hair splitting at any point, totality of situation ought to have been reviewed.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And Ors. on 22 September, 1959
Ka-15). Formal proof of Charge Sheet by admission of genuineness of same has been dispensed with by learned counsel for defence, hence same was exhibited as Ext. Ka-17. As per principle of law, fact admitted need not to be proved and admission is best piece of evidence, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous (Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others; AIR 1960 SC 100). Hence in present case genuineness of those prosecution papers were admitted by learned counsel for defence, hence for formally proving the same witnesses were not examined by prosecution.