Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.44 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Md.Ali @ Guddu vs State Of U.P on 10 March, 2015
In the case of Mohd. Ali alias Guddu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 272, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that delay in lodging F.I.R. in cases under Section 376 I.P.C. would depend upon facts of each case. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:
Deepak Kumar Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors.Etc on 27 February, 2012
In the case of Deepak Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 4 SCC 762, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. in a case of rape can occur due to various reasons. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, explanation given by the prosecution for delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the present case, appears to be plausible. Hence, there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that conviction of an accused can be based solely on the evidence of victim provided her evidence is worthy of reliance.
Alamelu & Anr vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 18 January, 2011
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, evidence of victim and principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh reported in 1989 SCC (Cri) 48, it has been held by the Apex Court that testimony of prosecution witnesses can not be discarded, unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as to destroy confidence in the prosecution witnesses. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below: