Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Suraj Pal vs State Of Haryana on 9 November, 1994
Since this witness saw
the appellant only after his refusal to join TIP proceedings, the appellant
had no justification to refuse to join the said proceedings on 24.9.2010.
When Mahavir Saini came in the witness box, he emphatically denied
the suggestion that he was shown the photographs of the appellant or
that the appellant was shown to him before the TIP proceedings and he
was asked to identify him. Therefore, in this case also, it can be safely
presumed that had the appellant joined the TIP proceedings, he would
have been identified by the eye witness and that precisely was the
reason why he refused to join the said proceedings on 24.9.2010.
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Pal
versus State of Haryana [(1995) 2 SCC 64].
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1