Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Surjeet Singh on 9 July, 1996
During the course of investigation, on 20.7.2011 one Gian
Singh son of Inder Singh got recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and levelled allegations against Surjeet Singh, Uggar Singh and
Jaskaran Singh for commission of murder of aforesaid four persons. The
investigating agency after completion of investigation, filed challan
against the above three persons under Sections 302/449/420/468/34 IPC
and under Sections 420, 468, 34 IPC against the present appellant and
Balwinder Singh. The appellant and Balwinder Singh were tried before
the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali and as many as
12 witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court. However,
thereafter, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali
committed that case to the Court of Sessions with the observation that the
case against the appellant and Balwinder Singh is an off-shoot case of the
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 19-11-2022 11:56:58 :::
CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -6-
main murder case titled as "State Vs. Surjeet Singh etc." Therefore, the
said case is required to be tried with that case. Thereafter, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa amalgamated both the cases vide order
dated 24.2.2012. As already mentioned above, all three accused, namely,
Surjeet Singh, Uggar Singh and Jaskaran Singh were finally acquitted
from the charges framed against them under Section 302 read with
Section 120-B IPC whereas, the present appellant was convicted and
sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 468
read with Section 120-B IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction
dated 3.2.2014 and order of sentence dated 5.2.2014.
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as the learned State counsel at length and also perused the lower
Court record.
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Mohsin Ali [Alongwith Special Appeal ... on 11 October, 1999
In State of U.P. Vs. Sunil, Criminal Appeal Nos.1432-1434
of 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that non-
compliance of Court directions to undergo lie detecting test may lead to
adverse inference. However, the same cannot be entertained as the sole
basis of conviction. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi
Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622 has laid five
conditions which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can
be said to be fully established in the case of circumstantial evidence. The
relevant portion reads as under:-