Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.11 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Sidhu Yadav @ Siddharth vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 September, 2017
and thus observed thereby that even if the subject had given consent to
undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be
admitted as evidence because the subject did not exercise
conscious control over the responses during the administration of
the test and it cannot be overlooked as adverted to elsewhere
hereinabove as laid down by this Court in Sidhu Yadav @ Siddharth
vs. State of NCT of Delhi 242 (2017) DLT 537 in Crl.M.C.1150/2017
that just as an inculpatory statement made by an accused collected
during a narco analysis test cannot be made the basis for conviction in
the same manner an exculpatory statement cannot be made the basis
for an acquittal and it would be a futile exercise to permit the accused
to undergo such test if sought by him, which verdict of this Court has
been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP
No.24422/2017 filed against the said verdict of this Court.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ritesh S/O Vasudeo Wanjari on 15 March, 2001
20. Reliance was thus placed on behalf of the wife of the deceased
on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra
BAIL APPL.1447/2019 Page 17 of 26
vs. Ritesh (2001) 4 SCC 224 and Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (2018)
12 SCC 129) to contend to the effect that the admissibility and effect
of evidence cannot be tested at the stage of granting bail with further
reliance placed on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kalyan Chand Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjarv (2004) 7 SCC 528).