Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gagan Kanojia & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 24 November, 2006
[See also Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 and
Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2006 (12) SCALE 479]
Moreover, while recording a judgment of conviction, the court may
consider a part of the deposition of a witness who had been permitted to be
cross-examined by prosecution having regard to the fact situation obtaining
in the said case. How the evidence adduced before it shall be appreciated by
the court would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Mithu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2001
Reliance by the learned counsel for the appellant on Mithu Singh v.
State of Punjab [(2001) 4 SCC 193] is misplaced. Therein, no overt act was
attributed to the appellant therein. The court found that no evidence was
brought on records as against him, save and except ipse dixit on the part of
the witnesses. This Court, in the aforementioned fact situation, opined:
State Of U.P vs Ramesh Prasad Misra And Anr on 13 August, 1996
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and Another [(1996) 10 SCC
360], this Court opined:
Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, Chandigarh on 18 August, 2006
[See also Triloki Nath and Others v. State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC
323]
In Pardeep Kumar v. Union Administration, Chandigarh [(2006) 10
SCC 608], this Court opined:
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Triloki Nath & Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2005
[See also Triloki Nath and Others v. State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC
323]
In Pardeep Kumar v. Union Administration, Chandigarh [(2006) 10
SCC 608], this Court opined:
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2002
[See also Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 and
Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2006 (12) SCALE 479]
Moreover, while recording a judgment of conviction, the court may
consider a part of the deposition of a witness who had been permitted to be
cross-examined by prosecution having regard to the fact situation obtaining
in the said case. How the evidence adduced before it shall be appreciated by
the court would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
1