Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 24 November, 2006
In the case of Vikramjit Singh @
Vicky vs. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 12 SCC Cri. 306 (Supra) it has
been held in para 14 as follows:
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Lakhmi on 12 February, 1998
26. Mr. Ghosal has referred to the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 1007
(Supra) wherein it has been held that if an accused admits any
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him there is no
warrant that those admissions should altogether be ignored merely on the
ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy. The
facts of the instant case are different and the aforesaid decision has no
manner of application here.
Sunder Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 May, 2007
601 [Sunder Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan] & (2006)12 SCC 306
[Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky Vs. State of Punjab] and (2003)3 SCC 175
[Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.O. and another].
Mr. Safiullah submits that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in
passing the judgment of conviction and sentence and it should be set
aside.
Vimal Suresh Kamble vs Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. And Another on 8 January, 2003
601 [Sunder Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan] & (2006)12 SCC 306
[Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky Vs. State of Punjab] and (2003)3 SCC 175
[Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.O. and another].
Mr. Safiullah submits that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in
passing the judgment of conviction and sentence and it should be set
aside.
Bhugdomal Gangaram And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat on 19 April, 1983
4. Mr. Safiullah appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
accused is a Government employee and on the date of incident he was in
his place of posting at Katwa and the I.O. did not investigate on this point
whether he was present at his place of posting on the date of occurrence or
not. Mr. Safiullah has drawn our attention to the evidence of I.O. where
the I.O. has stated in his cross-examination that he did not enquire about
attendance of Tarun Chakraborty in his place of work on 20.1.2003 and he
did not get the same done by any other officer. The I.O. has further stated
that he did not feel it necessary to examine the Warden of Katwa Sub-Jail
even after receipt of the message from Katwa Sub-Jail. Mr. Safiullah has
referred to and cited the decisions reported in (1984) 1 SCC 319
[Bhugdomal Gangaram and others Vs. State of Gujarat]; (2006) 1 SCC
Cri.603 [Ram Kishan and others Vs. State of U.P.]; (2007)3 SCC Cri.
1