Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 167 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992
31. As has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment (State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh), it is trite law that the attention of the accused must be specifically invited to inculpatory pieces of evidence or circumstances laid on record with a view to giving him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. imposes a heavy duty on the Court to take great care to ensure that the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused and his response solicited. The words "shall question him" clearly bring out the mandatory character of the clause and cast an imperative duty on the Court and confer a corresponding right on the accused to an opportunity to offer his explanation for such incriminating material appearing against him. It is, therefore, true that the purpose of the examination of the accused under Section 313 is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating material which has surfaced on record.
Ajmer Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 16 December, 1976
In Ajmer Singh v, State of Punjab, , it was held by their Lordships of the Apex Court that it is not sufficient compliance with Section 342, Cr. P.C. (now Section 313, Cr. P.C.), to generally ask the accused that having heard the prosecution evidence what he has to say about it. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The questions must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Every error or omission of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 342, Cr. P.C. does not necessarily vitiate a trial. Errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities and the question is whether the trial is vitiated depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been or is likely to have been caused to the accused.
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Machander, Son Of Pandurang vs State Of Hyderabad on 27 September, 1955
In Machander v. Hyderabad State, , it was held that the Judges and Magistrates should realize the importance of the examination Under Section 342, Cr. P.C. It is their duty to question the accused properly and fairly, bringing home to his mind in clear and simple language to the exact case he has to meet and each material point, that is sought to be made against him and of affording him a chance to explain them, if he can and so desires.
Section 391 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jai Dev vs The State Of Punjab(And Connected ... on 30 July, 1962
37. We therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat in Sessions Trial No. 4(9) of 1994 and direct the trial Court to examine all the six appellants afresh Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by re-framing only those questions which are contrary to the principles and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions quoted above and conclude the trial preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court.