Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu And Others on 19 February, 1993
30. Ld. Defence counsel argued the investigation was tainted and as such
cannot be relied upon. He further cited judgment in the matter of State of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramuly & Ors. where the IO deliberately delayed
the FIR and initiated investigation prior to its registration. In the present case,
IO recorded the complaint Ex.PW1/A promptly after ensuring medical aid to
the injured. The FIR(Ex.AD-1) was registered the same morning, and no
deliberate suppression is shown. Therefore, the above cited judgment is
factually distinguishable and does not vitiate the investigation.
Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979
Similarly, the
judgment Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) is also inapplicable as
unlike in the said judgment where key witnesses completely contradicted their
earlier statements and even exonerated one accused, the witnesses here have
remained consistent.