Mohd. Khalid vs State Of West Bengal on 3 September, 2002
(A) Mohd.Khalid v. State of W.B(1)
"17....The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.29 seconds)Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Devender Pal Singh vs State National Capital Territory Of ... on 22 March, 2002
21. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to publ
(B)In Devender Pal Singh v. State N.C.T. of Delhi(1)
It has been held that-
Bachittar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 September, 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------(1) 2003 SCC (Criminal) 233
In the above case also, when the police was investigating the case to know the truth, PW3 a resident of the village came and
Their Lordships are unable to accept the same; It is held that the testimony of PW3 is quite natural and trustworthy and w
At Paragraph 11, 12 & 21 it is observed as follows;
Banti @ Guddu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2003
"There are no hard-and-fast rule to test the veracity of the witnesses. One way of testing the veracity of the witness is th
statement. Simplicity of the statement is indicative of the naturalness and truthfulness. Often the polished statement tend
"Human behaviour varies from man to man. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human beha
"Believing the eyewitness account of Joginder Singh, coupled with other formidable materials on record, as discussed above,
view that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond the shadow of doubt, as held by the trial court and confirmed
4.11: Banti alias Guddu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.(1)
At paragraph 17 of the judgment it is observed as follows;
Bodh Raj @ Bodha And Ors vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 3 September, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------(1)AIR 2004 SC 261
factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the Court accepts the same a
4.12: Bodh Raj alias Bodha and others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir(1)
It was held that whenever the delay is explained it is not fatal.
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy And Three ... vs The State Of Hyderabad on 14 March, 1956
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and others Vs. State of Hyderabad(1) 1956 SC 379.
Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988
Such corroboration need not, however, be on the question of the actual commission of the offence; if this was the requiremen
4.17: In the instant case, PW3 is a mason, PW4 is a street hawker. As observed BY Honourable Supreme Court that it requires
4.18 : CONDUCT
The observation of Honourable Supreme Court of India on this point are;
(A)In Hafiz v. State of U.P.(1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that different persons act differently in a given s
(B)In Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat(2)
It has been held that-
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
(1) 2006(1)Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 647
(2) AIR 1988 Supreme Court 696
They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two in
(C) In State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh(1)