Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Mah. Thru. P.S.O vs Ramabai Wamanrao Khanorkar & 2 Ors on 22 December, 2017 cites

Pratap Singh And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2005

37. Learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out decision in the case of Pratap Singh and another .vs. State of M.P. (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "Investigating Officer has failed to file statements of two independent ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:33:07 ::: 22 apeal552.07.odt eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the charge sheet and also not examined them in the Court, observed that, for such lapses, adverse inference needs to be drawn." In the present case also, prosecution has suppressed the earlier statement recorded by PSI Kohare. Statements are intentionally not produced with the charge sheet and material facts are suppressed from the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 86 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bakshish Ram & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 8 May, 2009

35. Learned Counsel for the appellants/accused Mr.R.P.Joshi has pointed out the decision in the case of Bakshish Ram and another .vs. State of Punjab (cited supra). It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that " It is but natural that being the mother of deceased if she had come across any harassment or ill-treatment of her daughter in connection with demands for dowry soon before her daughter's death, she could have explained the same in her evidence. She had neither asserted nor narrated any complaint from her daughter about harassment or ill-treatment by the appellants. The mother of the deceased has not stated anything in her evidence with regard to harassment or mal-treatment of the deceased by the appellants on the basis of her personal knowledge.............. Hence, the evidence is not helpful insofar as the allegation of harassment and maltreatment in relation to demand of dowry is concerned. It is further held that ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:33:07 ::: 21 apeal552.07.odt prosecution is obliged to show that soon before occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment in relation to dowry demand and only in that case presumption u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act operate."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 48 - Full Document
1   2 Next