Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.94 seconds)Section 376 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 8 January, 2015
In Vinod Kumar v
State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 138, Supreme Court once
again has referred with approval to Chandrappa's case and
reproduced a passage from an earlier judgment of the
Court in Jadunath Singh v State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 577,
where the Court has reiterated the constantly taken view
that 'in an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full
power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the
conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal
should be reversed'.
Jadunath Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P on 7 December, 1970
In Vinod Kumar v
State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 138, Supreme Court once
again has referred with approval to Chandrappa's case and
reproduced a passage from an earlier judgment of the
Court in Jadunath Singh v State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 577,
where the Court has reiterated the constantly taken view
that 'in an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full
power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the
conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal
should be reversed'.
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 October, 2016
In the series of decisions on the point, the latest reported
case is Bhawan Jagannath Marked and others v State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 4531 decided on 04.10.2016.
Their Lordships have held in para 28 of the reporting:
Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 2014
In Kanhaiya Lal and Ors. v State of
Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 the Supreme Court has
reiterated that mere delay in lodging the First Information
Report cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the case of
the prosecution. However, it is obligatory on the part of
the court to take notice of the delay and examine, in the
backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation
has been offered by the prosecution and if such an
explanation has been offered whether the same deserves
acceptance being found to be satisfactory.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Gian Chand on 1 May, 2001
Supreme Court
in this case has referred to an earlier three-Judge Bench
decision of the Court in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001)
6 SCC 71 where their lordships have held: