Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.53 seconds)Section 417 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hem Raj vs The State Of Ajmer(And Connected ... on 17 March, 1954
18. Now, the question is whether there was corroboration with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime. The learned Judges of the High Court accepted the evidence with regard to at least three of the circumstances alleged against the appellant, namely, (1) the identity of the Chaddar (Ex. P-4), (2) the recovery of the gold ear-rings from their hiding place near the "pipal" tree and (3) the recovery of the blood-stained shirt (Ex. P-5) from the person of the appellant. These three circumstances, if accepted as true, undoubtedly connect the appellant with the crime. It is necessary to emphasise here that the rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused person in the crime must be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made, (see Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer) . If the rule required that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confessional statement must be separately and independently corroborated, then the rule would be meaningless inasmuch as the independent evidence itself would afford sufficient basis for conviction and it would be unnecessary to call the confession in aid.
Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 1952
As was observed in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh .
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Prandas vs The State on 14 March, 1950
12. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi has submitted that though the learned Judges have set out correctly the principles which should guide the High Court in an appeal from an order of acquittal, they have in fact disregarded those principles while reviewing the evidence upon which the order of acquittal in this case was founded. The power of the High Court in dealing with an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code is now settled by several decisions of this Court. There is the decision in Prandas v. State , a decision to which the learned Judges of the High Court have referred; it was observed there that the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal was stated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swamp v. Emperor .