Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
24. Therefore, considering the above evidence, and the decision of the Apex Court in [Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra] and [Padman Meher and Anr. v. State of Orissa], about version of eye-witnesses and approach of the Court in relying upon the statement of injured witnesses as recorded in , and even minor discrepancies in the medical evidence and eye-witnesses do not weaken the case of the prosecution, as [Janak Singh v. The State of U.P] and [Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab], we do not find any infirmities in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating evidence, oral as well as documentary, which require interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 379 of the Code.
Joginder Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 16 November, 1978
24. Therefore, considering the above evidence, and the decision of the Apex Court in [Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra] and [Padman Meher and Anr. v. State of Orissa], about version of eye-witnesses and approach of the Court in relying upon the statement of injured witnesses as recorded in , and even minor discrepancies in the medical evidence and eye-witnesses do not weaken the case of the prosecution, as [Janak Singh v. The State of U.P] and [Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab], we do not find any infirmities in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating evidence, oral as well as documentary, which require interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 379 of the Code.
Padman Meher And Anr. vs State Of Orissa on 21 October, 1980
24. Therefore, considering the above evidence, and the decision of the Apex Court in [Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra] and [Padman Meher and Anr. v. State of Orissa], about version of eye-witnesses and approach of the Court in relying upon the statement of injured witnesses as recorded in , and even minor discrepancies in the medical evidence and eye-witnesses do not weaken the case of the prosecution, as [Janak Singh v. The State of U.P] and [Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab], we do not find any infirmities in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating evidence, oral as well as documentary, which require interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 379 of the Code.
Janak Singh vs The State Of U.P. on 5 May, 1972
24. Therefore, considering the above evidence, and the decision of the Apex Court in [Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra] and [Padman Meher and Anr. v. State of Orissa], about version of eye-witnesses and approach of the Court in relying upon the statement of injured witnesses as recorded in , and even minor discrepancies in the medical evidence and eye-witnesses do not weaken the case of the prosecution, as [Janak Singh v. The State of U.P] and [Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab], we do not find any infirmities in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating evidence, oral as well as documentary, which require interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 379 of the Code.