Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.43 seconds)Section 3 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Mohd. Iqram & Anr on 13 June, 2011
In State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Iqram (1 supra), the Supreme Court
held that once the prosecution had brought home the presence of
the accused at the scene of the crime, then the onus shifts to the
defence to bring forth suggestions as to what could have brought
him to the spot. The defence failed to discharge its onus either by
making possible suggestions to the witnesses or by the accused
giving proper answers to the questions put to him under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. Though as many as 95 questions were put to the
accused, the only answer given by him was 'false'. He has not
even indicated anywhere in his examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C., that he was falsely implicated in the case.
Section 4 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Satni Bai vs State Of M.P on 29 January, 2010
In support of
his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Iqram and another and Satni Bai vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) .