Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Sanjay Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 23 May, 2017 cites

Pancho vs State Of Haryana on 20 October, 2011

17. It is trite law that confession itself shall not form the basis of conviction. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh has strenuously argued referring to Section 3 of the Evidence Act that a confession of an accused made before the Police would not fall in the category of evidence. However, Section 30 provides that a confession may be taken into consideration not only against its maker but also against the co-accused. It is an evidence in a non-technical sense. The Court will first look to the substantive evidence on which the prosecution relies. If those evidence, in the estimation of the Court, is satisfactory, capable of sustaining the charge framed against the accused, the Court turns to the confession with a view to ensuring itself that the conclusion which is inclined to draw from the other evidence is correct. Precisely, this is the legal position clarified by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 which has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pancho vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 523 on which the Counsel for the defence has relied to criticize the judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 97 - Full Document

Raj Kumar Khurana vs State Of (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 5 May, 2009

We have also noticed that no sooner arrest of the appellants including A/4 was made by the Police, the sending of text messages/calls from the said mobile stopped. We thus conclude on this point and held that recovery of the article from possession of A/4 gravely incriminated the said appellant in the crime. The contention of Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, in the facts of the case, has no substance. The reliance placed by him on paragraph 12 of Raj Kumar (supra) in our view is inappropriate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 132 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1