Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.70 seconds)Section 164A in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of J And K And Ors. vs Mohammad Shafi Bhat And Ors. on 5 September, 2003
Instant criminal appeal filed by the convict-Mohd. Shafi under
Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Samvat, 1989
["Cr.P.C. 1989"] arises out of a judgment of conviction dated 16th
August, 2023 and order of sentence passed on the same day by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban ["trial Court"] in File
No.48/Challan titled State v. Mohd. Shafi (FIR No.89/2013). Vide
judgment and order impugned, the appellant has been convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Ranbir Penal
Code (RPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant has been directed to undergo further
2
imprisonment for six months in case he makes default in payment of
fine.
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988
26. We are aware and as has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988
SC 1011, the murder by poison is invariably committed under the
cover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to another
in the presence of others. The person who administers poison to
another in secrecy will not keep a portion of it for the investigating
officer to come and collect it. The person who commits such murder
would naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence against
him. When we examine the case in hand in the light of legal position
adumbrated in Bhupinder Singh‟s case (supra), we clearly find that
though the prosecution may have succeeded in establishing that the
death of the deceased child occurred due to administering of poison
18
(organopharphorous) to child, yet there is no evidence on record to
prove that the poison was administered by the appellant. The
disclosure statement and the recovery of the bottle having left over
poison have not been proved at all.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
In Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1984 SC 1622, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court elaborated the five golden
principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Hanumant v. State
of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, which are being followed consistently in
the later cases. These five principles are as follows:-
Section 410 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hanumant vs The State Of Madhya ... on 23 January, 1952
In Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1984 SC 1622, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court elaborated the five golden
principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Hanumant v. State
of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, which are being followed consistently in
the later cases. These five principles are as follows:-