Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 24 August, 1998
It is further held, This question again came up
before a three Judge Bench recently in a case of
Ram Sunder Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1998) 7 SC
SC: 01/08 State vs. Satender & Ors.
Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors vs The State Of Assam on 12 October, 1977
365 where this Court affirmed the statement of
law made by the earlier three Judge Bench in
Vijayee Singh's case (supra) and also relied upon
at other three Judge Bench decision of the Court
in Bhaba Nanda Sarma vs. State of Assam (1977)
4 SCC 396 and as such accepted the principle
that if the evidence is clear, cogent and
creditworthy then non-explanation of the injury
on the accused ipso facto cannot be a basis to
discard th entire prosecution case.
Balwant Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 1994
55. This brings me to the next argument raised on behalf of
accused persons which is regarding delay in conducting inquest
proceedings and names of assailants being not mentioned in the
brief facts prepared by IO. It was urged that it shows FIR was
fabricated and antetime. The defence counsel supported this
argument on the basis of judgment 1. Balwant Singh Vs. State
1976 C.L.R. (Delhi), 2.
Baldev Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 1995
31. The foremost crucial question raised on behalf of the
accused persons is their identity as assailants of the incident. It was
argued that prosecution case hinges on the testimony of PW3 who
is the alleged eye witness of the case as the other eye witness
PW14, brother of PW3 has turned hostile. Even PW3 has not
supported the prosecution version for proving the identity of
accused persons as the said witness has deposed that when the
incident took place, there was absolute darkness and not a shade of
light was there. Although he has deposed that he identified the
accused persons by their voices which he could not have done as
he had no occasion to communicate with them and this fact has
been admitted by the witness. To support this argument, the
judgment reported as Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab; AIR
SC: 01/08 State vs. Satender & Ors.
Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972
59. There has been criticism of the prosecution case by the
defence on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR. PW3
has admitted that none of his family members went to police station
to report the incident though the police station was at a distance of
about 5 minutes from his house. He himself did not go to police
station which was on his way to hospital to report the matter.
Reliance was placed on the judgment reported as Thulia Kali Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1973 SC 501.