Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 April, 1995
In view of this line of authorities cited on behalf of
the State, learned counsel for the appellants had brought
to our notice a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High
Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra). This judgment is an
authority on the question as to which authority ought to be
followed in the event we are confronted with contrary
decisions of the Superior Court emanating from co-equal
benches. It has been held in this judgment:-
Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 1976
The ingredients necessary for establishing
common intention in terms of Section 34 of the 1860 Code
has been laid down in clear terms by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramaswamy (supra), and the relevant
passage from that judgment we have quoted above.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors on 28 February, 1967
(ii) State of A.P. Vs. Thakkidaram Reddy & Ors. [(1998)6 scc
554]
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 April, 2000
(v) Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2004)4 scc 484]
Ganga Saran vs Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad And ... on 25 January, 1991
We may, however, note that the Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Saran
(supra) has failed to notice an earlier Full
Bench decision of that Court itself in U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation (AIR All 1) which laid
down a contrary proposition."
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2014
46. A point on which argument was advanced on behalf of
the appellant was that P.W. 3 had not specifically named
the accused persons in her examination by the Investigating
Officer. On this point, the appellants sought to rely on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramaiah Vs
State of Karnataka [(2014)9 SCC 365] to contend that it is
permissible to assail a judgment of conviction on the basis
of documents seized and produced but withheld by
prosecution. In this case conviction is primarily on
evidence on factual narrative of the incident, where the
victim himself has narrated the incident of assault in
detail. The appellants have not shown any contradictory
medical report or other documents which could falsify the
factual basis of the offence, which is hacking the victim
with sharp-edged weapon. It was urged that the dismembered
portion of the hand, which was seized was not sent to the
forensic laboratory and it was not scientifically
established that the seized part of a human body was that
of the victim. But we do not think that factor improves
the defence case, as striking the blow ultimately resulting
in amputation of lower right forearm has been proved by the
prosecution.