Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)

Lachhuman Munda vs The State Of Bihar on 11 September, 1963

In Lachhuman Munda v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 Patna 210] the Patna High Court admitted in evidence portions of the first information report relating to the motive, the opportunity and the entire narrative of events before and after the crime. This case was followed in the judgment under appeal. Some of the decided cases took the view that if a part of the report is properly severable from the strict confessional part, then the severable part could be tendered in evidence. We think that the separability test is misleading, and the entire confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and save and except as provided by Section 27 and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence."
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Aghnoo Nagesia vs State Of Bihar on 4 May, 1965

19. On conjoint perusal of the aforementioned legislative provisions and the proposition of law as enunciated in the reported decision of Aghnoo Nagesia (supra) it reveals to us that the legislature in its wisdom while enacting Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made it clear that a confession made to a police officer and/or whilst in the custody of the police officer shall not be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Admittedly Section 27 of the said Act is an exception to the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 where the ban of Section 25 and 26 has been lifted to a 10 certain extent namely; a confession by an accused leading to discovery whilst in the custody of the police officer may be proved against him in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 351 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 Next