Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Laxman Keraba Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 August, 2000
In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, in
our opinion, it is not necessary to elaborately discuss the evidence
of other witnesses i.e., panchas and other witnesses on recovery
of the articles in view of the legal position stated in the case of
Laxman Keraba Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), that
when the accused is handcuffed and the articles are recovered
Page 15 of 17
Apeal.562.2021 (R).doc
pursuant to his statement, cannot be said to be beyond doubt that
the recovery was voluntary and not the result of duress, threat or
pressure by the police authorities.
Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 1998
13. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has also
brought to the notice of this Court that the alleged confessional
statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure was
not signed by the appellant. Her submission is that the said
statement was not voluntary and same was not signed by the
appellant and, therefore, the said statement cannot form the basis
of conviction. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Abdul Razak Shaikh Ismail
Page 10 of 17
Apeal.562.2021 (R).doc
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra1 and submitted that in absence
of signature of the accused, the said statement cannot be relied
upon.