Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.84 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dr Jacob George vs State Of Kerala on 13 April, 1994
In the case of Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala (1994) 3 SCC 430 : 1994 Cri LJ 3851 the Apex Court reiterated the observations made in the case of Hari Kishan (1989 Cri LJ 116) (supra) and ordered the payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh reducing substantive sentence of imprisonment. The Court ordered that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be given to the victim.
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 174 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Narain & Anr vs State Of U.P on 12 March, 1996
13. So also, it is not necessary to indicate in the site plan the places from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. As a matter of fact, when such points are indicated, it would mean that the witnesses had informed the police about such places and that would amount to statement of witnesses to the police under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Such statements are hit by Section 162, Cr. P.C. as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Narain v. State (1996) 3 JT (SC) 89 : AIR 1996 SC 3136 and Tori Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 399 : 1962(1)Cri LJ 469. As such, on the ground that the places of the standing of the witnesses have not been indicated in the site place, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be seen with suspicion.
Jugal Kishore vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 January, 1973
In the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Cri LR (Raj) 267 cited by Mr. Singh, it has been observed that delay in sending FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution. In the instant case, as we hate already seen that the prosecution has explained the delay, therefore, this ruling does not help the accused person in any manner.