Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kushal Rao vs The State Of Bombay on 25 September, 1957
33. By Ex. P/3 and evidence of Kusumkant prosecution has not established that the appellant has committed sexual intercourse with Sunita, as this Court has pointed out in the discussion made above. Evidence in respect of dying declaration is not fit to be believed keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, (1958 Cri LJ 106) (supra), because such evidence is not subjected to test of cross-examination, for finding out truth, by the accused.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
In the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984 Cri I.J 1738) (supraj, Supreme Court further observed that it is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or plea which is not accepted by a Court.
1