Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.45 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sampat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 January, 1969
The ratio of the aforementioned cases was again examined in Sampat Singh v. State of Rajasthan . On the facts of the case, after accepting a part of the statement of the accused it was held that he caused injuries in exercise of the right of self-defence but he exceeded the same. It was observed that it is permissible for the Court to rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution.
Nishi Kant Jha vs State Of Blihar on 2 December, 1968
In Nishi Kant Jha's case there was no eye-witness to the commission of the crime and the evidence was all circumstantial and the statement of the accused that he was present at the scene of the crime was a vital circumstance which taken in conjunction with other circumstances led the Court to come to the conclusion that he was guilty of the crime imputed to him.
Section 242 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Narain Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 15 July, 1975
In Narain Singh v. State of Punjab it was held that it is not open to the Court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative, and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act which would but for the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from the explanation.
1