Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.39 seconds)Section 164 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Barindra Kumar Ghose And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 November, 1909
161 : 41 C. 601 : 15 Cr. L.J. 713, also the judgment of Carnduff, J., in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor 7 Ind. Cas. 359 : 37 C. 467 at p. 520 : 14 C.W.N. 1114 : 11 Cr. L.J. 453.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Surendra Nath Mukerji vs Emperor on 15 April, 1918
8. On the point of discovery we may refer to the case reported as Surendra Nath Mukerji v. Emperor 47 Ind. Cas. 659 : 19 Cr. L.J. 935 at p. 937 : 16 A.L.J. 478 though with all deference to the learned Judges who decided that case, we should say that in our opinion the words "I have killed my wife" should not have been treated as admissible.
Adu Shikdar vs Queen-Empress on 29 May, 1885
9. On behalf of the accused it is here contended that when facts are already known to persons other than Police Officers, such fasts cannot be said to be discovered in consequence of information received within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We are unable to accede to this contention. The language of the section and its place in the Evidence Act, in our opinion, make it clear that the discovery therein referred to is discovery to or by Police Officers, and in support of this view we may refer to the one of Adu Shikdar v. Queen Empress 11 C. 635 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1182.