Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pramod Mandal vs State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2004
In another case of Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar
(2004) 13 SCC 150 placing reliance on the case of Anil
Kumar (supra) the Apex Court observed as under:
Mulla & Another vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 2010
In the matter of Mullah v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC
508 it has been held by the Apex Court as under:
Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972
In Thulia Kali v. State of TN (1972) 3 SCC 393
it was held that the delay in lodging the first
information report quite often results in
embellishment as a result of afterthought. On
account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of
the advantage of spontaniety, but also danger
creeps in of the introduction of coloured version,
exaggerated account or concocted story as a result
of deliberation and consultation.
Subramani And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2002
15. Further in the matter of Muttaicose alias Subramani
v. State of Tamilnadu represented by Inspector of
Police reported in (2017) 8 SCC 598 it has been held by the
Apex Court as under:
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 5 May, 2008
In Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar
(2008) 12 SCC 173 this Court has observed as under:
Ravinder Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 August, 2001
In Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2001) 7
SCC 690 this Court observed as under:
Lal Singh And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 November, 2003
"43. It will thus be seen that the evidence of
identification has to be considered in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case. Though it is
desirable to hold the test identification at the
earliest-possibile opportunity, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down in this regard. If the delay is
inordinate and there is evidence probabalising the
possibility of the accused having been shown to the
witnesses, the Court may not act on the basis of
such evidence. Moreover, cases where the
conviction is based not solely on the basis of
identification in Court, but on the basis of other
corroborative evidence, such recovery of looted
articles, stand on a different footing and the Court
has to consider the evidence in its etirety."