Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (3.62 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 2009
“22. From a close examination of the principles laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid series of decisions as referred to herein above on the
question of exercising power to interfere with findings of fact by this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, the following principles,
therefore, emerge:
Khilli Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 October, 1984
31. Further in Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan, when the Court found
that certain features were overlooked by the courts below, there was no
jurisdictional bar in finding out whether the prosecution case could at all
be accepted, and we would be well advised to reproduce paragraphs 4 and 13
from the said judgment, which read as under:
Suryamoorthi And Anr. vs Govindaswamy And Ors. on 13 April, 1989
32. Yet again in Suryamoorthi & Anr. v. Govindaswamy & Ors., (1989) 3 SCC
24, the Court observed that discretion conferred by Article 136 of the
Constitution is wide enough to permit this Court to interfere even on facts
in suitable cases if the approach of the courts below had resulted in grave
miscarriage of justice.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Prakash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration) on 20 November, 1978
13. We are prepared to agree with Counsel for the State of Rajasthan that
ordinarily a case of this type is difficult to prove and the law is settled
that even the uncorroborated testimony of trap witnesses can be acted upon
as indicated by this Court in the case of Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi
Administration), 1979 Cri.L.J. 329 and Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of
Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCR 569, but in the present case the evidence of the
panchas is not available to support the prosecution case. There is
discrepancy in many material aspects. The prosecution story is opposed to
ordinary human conduct. The discrepancies go to the root of the matter and
if properly noticed would lead any court to discard the prosecution
version. Without powder treatment, for the absence of which no explanation
has been advanced, the prosecution story becomes liable to be rejected. An
overall assessment of the matter indicates that the story advanced by the
prosecution is not true and the defence version seems to be more probable.
Sham Sunder vs Puran And Anr on 21 September, 1990
In Sham Sunder v. Puran & Anr., (1990) 4 SCC 731), this Court
observed that such an exercise would be justified for the purpose of
satisfying itself that the grave injustice had not resulted in the case.
We quote hereinbelow the following observations from that case:
1