Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994
The contention of Ld defence counsel that no motive has been
SC No. 40/1 46
attributed on the part of the accused persons to commit murder of deceased
Satish by the prosecution is also not forceful in any manner, as it has been
held in 2010 CRI.L.J. 3675 titled as Suresh Vs State that "motive of
accused was to murder deceased with object of committing theft." This
judgment is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Otherwise also the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention
committed robbery and caused fatal injuries to the deceased with intent to
commit murder, who died thereafter, at the place of occurrence itself.
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rameshwar Prasad Etc., Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 February, 1983
It has been held in 2010 CRI.L.J. 85 Ramesh Kumar alias
Rameshwar Vs State that " if articles is not visible to naked eye and hidden
in bushes and appellant himself retrieved same from within bushes then the
recovery were not tainted and inspire confidence, but for accused the
Investigation Officer could not have laid his hand thereon."