Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)Raja @ Rajinder vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2015
The recovery of blood stained clothes and dead-body, which was at the behest of the accused and as discussed hereinabove, the decision in the case of Dilipkumar Ramayanprasad Dushad & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2010 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana, reported in Jt 2015(4) SC 57 will not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge as far as the admissions are concerned.
Bahadul Alias Ghanshyam Padhan vs State Of Orissa on 16 January, 1979
12. The principles enunciated by the Apex Court for case hinging on circumstantial evidence and what should be the approach of the Court in an appeal under sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, where the accused has been convicted by the learned trial Judge for commission of the offence under section 302 coupled with sec. 201 IPC, has to be evaluated. The factual scenario as it emerges, there are three aspects; the seizure of the weapon of assault; the report of FSL showing the blood stains matching with that of the deceased and recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused. Learned advocate has tried to place reliance on authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Bahadul v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1262, contending that merely because the weapon was shown by the accused, it would not be admissible in evidence under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. The said decision cannot help the accused as in the said decision, the place was accessible to all, whereas, in the present case, as the factual scenario unfolds itself the place of offence and the place where the weapon was found, were not accessible to all, rather they could be known to the accused alone.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Ramesh Prasad Misra And Anr on 13 August, 1996
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon.
Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs Daroga Singh & Ors on 12 October, 2007
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, Subbu Singh v. State, C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi). Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and the relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, Subbu Singh v. State, C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi). Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and the relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
Himanshu @ Chintu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 January, 2011
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, Subbu Singh v. State, C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi). Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and the relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
Vijay Thakur vs State Of H.P on 19 September, 2014
17. The post-mortem report shows that death was due to shock and hamarage as a result of anti-mortem injuries. The injuries which have been found on the body of the deceased has caused the death and the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that this was a case of grave and sudden provocation cannot be accepted. The decision cited by learned counsel for appellant in Vijay Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2014 (14) SCC 609 and submitted that accused found the deceased in compromising position with his wife is also not acceptable as there are large number of incised wounds and further the dead body was found buried in the house of accused, and therefore, we are unable to accept the submission that this was a case of grave and sudden provocation. The theory put forward by the accused and the entire chain is here-in-above mentioned is complete, and therefore, it cannot be said that accused, Sukai Pasi, has not committed the offence under Section 302 read with Section 201.