Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 181 (1.21 seconds)
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chander Sharma on 23 September, 2025 cites

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980

249. To do this, the trial court must elicit information from the accused and the State. The State must, for an offence carrying capital punishment, at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court, disclosing a psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused. This will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the accused person's frame of mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7) spelled out in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]. Even for the other factors of (3) and (4)--an onus placed squarely on the State--
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 395 - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2009

244. The lack of forthcoming information has led to attempts by the courts, to look backwards--sometimes many years after the crime has been committed--to evaluate on the one hand, circumstances that could not have been paused in time, and on the other those which can be captured, but for which there exists no frame of reference from the past, for comparison. This inconsistency in some courts calling for reports, while others fail to -- further contributes to our patchwork jurisprudence on capital sentencing, and in turn undermines the equality principle and due process protections that Santosh Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] recognises as existing, in favour of death row convicts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 235 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005

We may usefully reproduce paras 142 to 144 of the same reported decision, wherein the Court observed thus : (Navjot Sandhu case [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715], SCC pp. 710-11) "142. There is one more point which we would like to discuss, i.e. whether pointing out a material object by 165 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) the accused furnishing the information is a necessary concomitant of Section 27. We think that the answer should be in the negative. Though in most of cases, the person who makes the disclosure himself leads the police officer to the place where an object is concealed and points out the same to him, however, it is not essential that there should be such pointing out in order to make the information admissible under Section 27. It could very well be that on the basis of information furnished by the accused, the investigating officer may go to the spot in the company of other witnesses and recover the material object. By doing so, the investigating officer will be discovering a fact, viz., the concealment of an incriminating article and the knowledge of the accused furnishing the information about it. In other words, where the information furnished by the person in custody is verified by the police officer by going to the spot mentioned by the informant and finds it to be correct, that amounts to the discovery of a fact within the meaning of Section 27. Of course, it is subject to the rider that the information so furnished was the immediate and proximate cause of discovery. If the police officer chooses not to take the informant accused to the spot, it will have no bearing on the point of admissibility under Section 27, though it may be one of the aspects that goes into the evaluation of that particular piece of evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 1292 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next