Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)

Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980

23. That the underwears of the accused were seized on September 27, 2003 when they were in jail and these articles were sent for chemical examination is not in dispute. That the evidence pertaining to chemical examination of underwears shows that those underwears were found stained with human semen and spermatozoa is also not in dispute. Mr. T.V. George, learned counsel, however, strenuously urged that merely because underwears were found stained with human semen by itself cannot be used as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. Learned counsel in this regard placed reliance upon the following decisions: (1) Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 35; (2) Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 1 6 SCC 702 and Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra And Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 92.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 321 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next