Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.44 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982
In the instant case, the State has failed to show that the appellant is a
continuing threat to the society or that he is beyond reformation and
rehabilitation. Both the courts below, in my opinion, appear to have been
influenced by the brutality and the manner in which the crime is committed.
But this Court cannot ignore the fact that there are no criminal
antecedents of the appellant. Also, it cannot be said that he is
continuing threat to the society or that he cannot be reformed or
rehabilitated. It is also pertinent to mention here that the accused is
from socially and economically disadvantaged strata of the society.
Therefore, considering all the facts, circumstances and the established
principle of law laid down by this Court, in the present case, sentence of
imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice.
Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011
21. The general rule of evidence is that hearsay evidence is not
admissible. However, Section 6 of the Evidence Act embodies a principle,
usually known as the rule of res gestae in English Law, as an exception to
hearsay rule. The rationale behind this Section is the spontaneity and
immediacy of the statement in question which rules out any time for
concoction. For a statement to be admissible under Section 6, it must be
contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least
immediately thereafter. The key expressions in the Section are “…so
connected… as to form part of the same transaction”. The statements must
be almost contemporaneous as ruled in the case of Krishan Kumar Malik
(Supra) and there must be no interval between the criminal act and the
recording or making of the statement in question as found in Gentela
Vijayvardhan Rao’s case (Supra). In the latter case, it was accepted that
the words sought to be proved by hearsay, if not absolutely contemporary
with the action or event, at least should be so clearly associated with it
that they are part of such action or event. This requirement is apparent
from the first illustration below Section 6 which states …. “whatever was
said or done…. at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form
part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.”