Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.67 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Section 9 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 458 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Kanan And Ors. vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 1979
As it appears, the case was conducted in a half hearted manner. Surprisingly accused Surendra and Kamesh although were present in Court on the date the said witness was examined the prosecuting lawyer did not ask the witness to identify them. The above three witnesses having not identified the petitioner in the Court, their statement regarding identification in the T. I. parade cannot be used as legal evidence to rope the petitioner in the crime. As already stated earlier, the only evidence that was sought to be proved against the petitioner is the evidence of identification by P. Ws. I and 2 for the-first time in Court which in view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred to above, cannot be accepted to base conviction. In view of discussions made above, there having no clinching evidence to put seal of approval to the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I am inclined to allow the revision.
Budhsen vs State Of U.P on 6 May, 1970
In this context I would profitably refer to a decision of the apex Court in the case of Budhsen v. State of U.P., , where it was observed :
1