Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Krishna Govind Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 1963
Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 51; Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1413; and Baul v. The State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 728.
Baul & Another vs State Of U.P on 24 November, 1967
Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 51; Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1413; and Baul v. The State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 728.
Prabhu Babaji Navle vs State Of Bombay on 19 September, 1955
Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 51; Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1413; and Baul v. The State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 728.
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
21. We may observe once again that the Sessions' Judge had himself given the benefit of doubt to the appellant for offences under Sections 201 and 436 I. P. C., which were parts of the same transaction. We find it difficult to break up the occurrence into several transactions and to hold that only the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the unreliable evidence before us. We think that mystery and reasonable doubt envelop the whole prosecution case. The prosecution has not succeeded in dispelling these. On the other hand, the unnatural and contradictory pieces of evidence and at least partially perjured evidence of the prosecution witnesses have deepened the mystery. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be acted upon without satisfactory corroboration (See : V. Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614.
1