Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Md. Nasim vs The State Of Bihar on 7 January, 2025 cites

Ram Narain Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 15 July, 1975

32. Following the law laid down in Narain Singh case [(1964) 1 Cri LJ 730 : (1963) 3 SCR 678] the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : 1992 Cri LJ 3454] further dealt with the question whether a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC can constitute the sole basis for conviction and recorded a finding that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC of 1973 can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial though such a statement strictly is not evidence and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1386 of 2017 dt.07-01-2025 17/20 observed in para 52 thus : (Sukhdev Singh case [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : 1992 Cri LJ 3454] , SCC p. 744) "52. Even on first principle we see no reason why the court could not act on the admission or confession made by the accused in the course of the trial or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 220 - S M Ali - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992

32. Following the law laid down in Narain Singh case [(1964) 1 Cri LJ 730 : (1963) 3 SCR 678] the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : 1992 Cri LJ 3454] further dealt with the question whether a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC can constitute the sole basis for conviction and recorded a finding that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC of 1973 can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial though such a statement strictly is not evidence and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1386 of 2017 dt.07-01-2025 17/20 observed in para 52 thus : (Sukhdev Singh case [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : 1992 Cri LJ 3454] , SCC p. 744) "52. Even on first principle we see no reason why the court could not act on the admission or confession made by the accused in the course of the trial or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code."
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 268 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. R. B. Chowdhary & 2 Ors on 19 April, 1967

Thus the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. See State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari [(1967) 3 SCR 708 : AIR 1968 SC 110 : 1968 Cri LJ 95] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 81 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Nishi Kant Jha vs State Of Blihar on 2 December, 1968

"27. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. See Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC 347 : AIR 1969 SC 422] : (SCC pp. 357- 58, para 23) "23. In this case the exculpatory part of the statement in Exhibit 6 is not only inherently improbable but is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1386 of 2017 dt.07-01-2025 14/20 contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury which the appellant received was caused by the appellant's attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under Section 342 CrPC to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13-10-1961 negatives both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led to his washing his clothes and having a bath in River Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the bloodstains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. According to the post-mortem report this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances like these there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Exhibit 6 the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 68 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1