Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Param Hans Yadav & Sadanand Tripathi vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 February, 1987
In Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar it was held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence there had been defective investigation the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent, such lapse affected the object of finding out the truth. The contaminated conduct of officials alone should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the Courts in finding out the truth, if the materials on record are otherwise credible and truthful; otherwise the designed mischief at the instance of biased or interested investigator would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party, and in the process to the community at large.
Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 1998
14. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.
Harijana Thirupala And Ors. vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., ... on 1 August, 2002
22. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the place of the occurrence took place in the market place but no independent witness was examined .In support of his submission reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. has held as under: