Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.31 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961
125. No defence evidence has been adduced to show that the appellant was
compelled to give statement before the police, or he was compelled to give
information under Section 27 regarding the place where he had kept the dao in
his house. To give the benefit of observations made by the Apex Court in the
case of "The State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others" (supra)
to the appellant, that the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act may not be used against the giver of such information if he was compelled
to divulge such information, there has to be some trustworthy material on
record from which the court may come to the conclusion that the appellant was
Page No.# 68/75
compelled to divulge the information, and that it was not a voluntary disclosure.
However, in the instant case, no such material is there on record, apart from the
statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which in itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellant was
compelled to divulge information under section 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Therefore, we are not inclined to give the benefit of the
observations made in the aforementioned case to the appellant.