Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.21 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
"167. The comment made by the High Court appears to
be frightfully vague and absolutely unintelligible. While
holding in the clearest possible terms that there is no
evidence in this case to show that the appellant was in
possession of poison, the High Court observes that this
fact may be proved either by direct or indirect
(circumstantial) evidence. But it fails to indicate the
nature of the circumstantial or indirect evidence to show
that the appellant was in possession of poison. If the
Court seems to suggest that merely because the
Crl.Appeal No.1107/14
-:7:-
appellant had the opportunity to administer poison and
the same was found in the body of the deceased, it
should be presumed that the appellant was in possession
of poison, then it has committed a serious and gross
error of law and has blatantly violated the principles laid
down by this Court. The High Court has not indicated as
to what was the basis for coming to a finding that the
accused could have procured the cyanide.
Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vijay Alias Gyan Chand Jain vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 1994
(iii) Vijay Alias Gyan Chand Jain v. State of M.P.
[(1994) 6 SCC 308]. This was a case in which it was held that
Crl.Appeal No.1107/14
-:8:-
Exception 5 to S.300 I.P.C. must receive a very strict and not a
liberal interpretation and in applying the said exception, the act
alleged to be consented to or authorised by the victim must be
considered with a very close scrutiny.