Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1962
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact
referred to in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the
object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which
the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as
to it. (Pulikuri Kottaya AIR 1947 PC 67). The said ratio
has received unreserved approval of this Court in successive
decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of
Maharashtra (1969 2 SCC 872), K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State
of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788), Earabhadrappa @
Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983 2 SCC 330),
Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of U.P. (1995 4 SCC 430), State
of Rajasthan vs. Bhup Singh 1997 10 SCC 675).
Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact
referred to in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the
object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which
the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as
to it. (Pulikuri Kottaya AIR 1947 PC 67). The said ratio
has received unreserved approval of this Court in successive
decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of
Maharashtra (1969 2 SCC 872), K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State
of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788), Earabhadrappa @
Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983 2 SCC 330),
Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of U.P. (1995 4 SCC 430), State
of Rajasthan vs. Bhup Singh 1997 10 SCC 675).
Shamshul Kanwar vs State Of U.P on 4 May, 1995
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact
referred to in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the
object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which
the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as
to it. (Pulikuri Kottaya AIR 1947 PC 67). The said ratio
has received unreserved approval of this Court in successive
decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of
Maharashtra (1969 2 SCC 872), K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State
of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788), Earabhadrappa @
Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983 2 SCC 330),
Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of U.P. (1995 4 SCC 430), State
of Rajasthan vs. Bhup Singh 1997 10 SCC 675).
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
Learned counsel for the accused invited out attention
to the decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) in which an
earlier decision in Ramgopal vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR
1972 SC 656) was followed with approval as laying down
different tests regarding the mode and manner of proof in
cases of murder by administration of poison. They are: (1)
Whether there is a clear motive for an accused to administer
poison to the deceased. (2) Whether the deceased died of
poison which is said to have been administered. (3) Whether
the accused had poison in his possession. (4) Whether he
had an opportunity to administer it to the deceased.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 September, 1969
It is now well settled that the discovery of fact
referred to in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the
object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which
the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as
to it. (Pulikuri Kottaya AIR 1947 PC 67). The said ratio
has received unreserved approval of this Court in successive
decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of
Maharashtra (1969 2 SCC 872), K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State
of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788), Earabhadrappa @
Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (1983 2 SCC 330),
Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of U.P. (1995 4 SCC 430), State
of Rajasthan vs. Bhup Singh 1997 10 SCC 675).
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1