Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohd.Arif @ Ashfaq vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 August, 2011
In Ashfaq v State, reported as (2004) 3 SCC 116, where
the accused persons were armed with country made pistol and
knives. The conviction of the accused persons was upheld for
the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC despite the fact
that the knives were not recovered. It was held that:
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rakesh & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 August, 2014
22. On the issue of non-recovery of the weapons of offence from the
accused/appellants, it is noted that the Supreme Court in Rakesh and
Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported as (2021) 7 SCC
188 has observed that recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua
non for convicting an accused. Albeit under Sections 302/34 IPC, the Court
in this case also opined that it was not possible to reject the ocular evidence
of eye-witnesses to the incident, who were reliable and trustworthy.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Raja vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 10 December, 2019
"24. As has been repeatedly laid down by this Court, what is
important is the identification in court and if such identification
is otherwise found by the court to be truthful and reliable, such
substantive evidence can be relied upon by the court.
Considering the totality of circumstances on record, the
presence and participation of Accused 1 to 6, in our view, stood
proved through the eyewitness account. We do not find any
infirmity in the evidence of identification by PWs 1 to 5."
1