Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.36 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Santosh Kumari vs State Of J & K & Ors on 13 September, 2011
With regard to defective charge, according to the provisions of Section
215 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. the impugned
judgment cannot be interfered with in absence of any misleading factor in the
charge framed against an accused person. Reference may be made to the
decision of Santosh Kumari vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in
2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 657, and the relevant portion of the above decision is
quoted below:-
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2010
Reliance is placed by Mr. Roy Chowdhury on the decisions of Santosh
Kumar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in 2011 (3) SCC (Cri)
657, Shishan vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000 (10) SCC 249,
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011
(11) SCC 111 and Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2015 (1)
SCC 496 in support of his above submissions.
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
In State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, reported in
1988 (Supp) SCC 686 that it would not be proper to reject a case of the
prosecution for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case
made out was otherwise true and acceptable. It was further observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case that there was a tendency amongst
witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated
version. According to the Apex Court, that could not be a ground to throw
the case overboard in the event there was a ring of truth in the main. It was
observed that the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the
evidence unless there was a reason to believe that inconsistencies or
falsehood were so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses.
Thereafter, a reminder was given by the Apex Court to a learned Judge
presiding over a criminal trial that a Judge does not preside over a criminal
trial merely to see that no innocent person is punished but the learned Judge
also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important
as the other. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
State Of U.P vs Krishna Master & Ors on 3 August, 2010
In the decision of State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master, reported in
(2010) 12 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in course of examining the
credibility of child/young witness held that it would be doing injustice to a
child witness to say that it would be inconceivable for him to recapitulate
facts in his memory witnessed by him long ago. Once he could be found
possessing a sharp memory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further added that
a child/young witness was not likely to forget the incident of murder of his
father, mother, brothers, etc. which he had witnessed, for his whole life and
would certainly recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same
at any point of time, notwithstanding the period of gap between the incident
and recording of his evidence. The relevant portion of the above decision is
quoted below:-
Dharampal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2010
While considering the contentions of the appellants in this case, an
important cardinal rule of recording the statement of an accused under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be considered. It is a part of fair
trial to give opportunity to an accused while recording his statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., to give his explanation regarding the
circumstance appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. It means and purports that the entire prosecution evidence
need not be put to the accused for obtaining elicit answer thereto but failure
to put those circumstances which are adverse to him and obtaining of
explanation thereto which would help the Court for evaluating the evidence
properly would vitiate the trial provided when on fact it is found that it had
occasioned a failure of justice. Reference may be made to the decision of
Dharampal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 608 and
the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
Radhey Shyam vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2014
The decision of Radhey Shyam (supra) does not help the appellant in
the instant case. We find adequate corroboration to the evidence of child
witness PW 14. In the instant case, the testimony of the hostile witnesses
have been taken into consideration by us up to the extent the same
corroborated by that of the evidence of PW 14.