Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.46 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
K.B. Prabhu vs Emperor on 3 December, 1943
In this connection a reference is also made to Prabhu v. Emperor AIR (31) 1944 P.C. 73. Both the cases clearly show that invalidity of the investigation has no relation to the competence of the court.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi on 17 April, 1963
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Prasad Joshi it has been observed by his lordship Subba Rao. J. that where the prosecution evidence has been held to be true and where the accused had full say in the matter, the conviction cannot obviously be set aside on the ground of some irregularity or illegality in the matter of investigation; there must be a sufficient nexus, either established or probabilised, between the conviction and irregularity in the investigation.
Dr. M.C. Sulkunte vs State Of Mysore on 27 November, 1970
In Dr. M.C. Sulkunte v. The State of Mysore it has been laid down by his lordship Mitter, J. that to set aside the conviction it must be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice as a result of irregular investigation.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Narayana on 9 February, 1971
In a recent decision reported in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.N. Narayan his Lordship Sikri, C.J., held that:
The State Of Bombay vs Rusy Mistry And Anr. on 24 September, 1959
It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the informant given in court or to impeach his credit. It follows that a court cannot treat the first information report as a substantive evidence. It can only make use of (sic) in one or other of the aforesaid purposes. See The State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistery . Absence of the name of a particular witness in the report or want of details as to at what particular place the bundle of the currency notes was in fact put will not; materially affect it. The major part of the story hangs together remarkably well in the document.
Abdul Gani And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 1952
In this connection a reference is made to Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh . In that case it has been observed that:
Stephen Seneviratne vs The King on 29 July, 1936
9. That apart, it is a wrong idea that the prosecution must call witness irrespective of consideration of reliability or that it should discharge the function both of prosecution & defence. Witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative, on which the prosecution is based, must, of course, be called by the prosecution: See Stephen Seneviratne v. King AIR 1936 P.C. 289.
Raghubir Singh vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 1971
It is also observed by his lordship Dua, J., in Raghubir Singh v. The State of U.P. that the prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses said to have seen the occurrence. Material witnesses considered necessary by the prosecution for unfolding the prosecution story alone need be produced, without unnecessary and redundant multiplication of witnesses. Here Abdul Gani was obviously an associate or ally of Mehmood Beg. Apparently, therefore, the prosecution did not expect that his production would serve any useful purpose in its favour. Abdul Gani, as has been stated above, was not present at the time of the actual transaction. His evidence would, therefore, have hardly contributed to unfolding the main prosecution narrative. In the light of the above discussion, I do not agree with learned Counsel for the appellant that nonproduction of Abdul Gani in this case has impaired the prosecution version.