Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.11 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Malkhansingh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2003
In
appropriate cases, it may accept the evidence of identification
even without insisting on corroboration (see Malkhansingh v.
State of M.P.) ....."
Section 26 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
K.Ponnusamy vs State By Inspector Of Police Sendamaram ... on 23 November, 2015
In "Ponnusamy vs. State of T.N"10 the accused were
known to the witnesses. They did not mention name of the accused
and on that basis a plea was raised that there was no identification
of the accused by the witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that where identity of the accused was not an issue raised by
the defence the evidence of the witnesses who did not refer to him
by name cannot be discarded.
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
"35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act
is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The
doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered
in a search made on the strength of any information obtained
from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information
might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it
results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information.
Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as
evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It
is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a
fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council
in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor is the most quoted authority for
supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged
in the section embraces the place from which the object was
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
information given must relate distinctly to that effect."