Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 66 (0.48 seconds)Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 6 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of H1Machal Pradesh vs Jai Lal And Ors on 13 September, 1999
Similarly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal and others (supra) Paragraphs
17, 20 is distinguished, as is evident from the case of Safi Mohd. Vs.
State of Rajasthan, 2013 AIR SCW 2498.
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The State Of Gujarat vs Adam Fateh Mohmed Umatiya And Ors. on 4 March, 1971
Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in the case of
The State of Gujarat Vs. Adam Fateh Mohmed Umatiya and
others (supra) and it is held that the evidence of identification
unsupported by photograph is nothing more than an expression of
opinion. The evidence does not establish that test cartridges and
empty cartridges were fired from the same weapon or that the misfired
cartridge was fired from the same weapon. The bulj marks on test
cartridges and bulj marks on the empty cartridges were similar but not
the same, cannot establish that the empty cartridges were fired from
the same weapon. The bulj marks on the empty cartridges were of the
shape of an eye. The expert witness did not take composite
photograph of the empty cartridges superimposed by the test
cartridges. The photographs taken were not in the same condition of
light. If identification marks were different at the face of the cartridge
that would show that they were not fired from the same weapon, the
evidence of the Expert in absence of the photograph cannot be relied
upon.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Faddi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 1964
ii, iii. Further reliance is placed in this regard is in
the case of Faddi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) wherein it
has been held that a case registered by a person who subsequently
becomes an accused, hence, the FIR registered by him when he was
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2014 dt. 04-11-2015
112/164
not an accused is not confession but admission and relevant under
Section 6 of the Evidence Act. There is circumstantial evidence to
establish that the appellants in the cover of encounter committed a
heinous offence of killing the three innocent students.