Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.19 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 396 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 1952
In Kashmira Singh v. The State
of Madhya Pradesh,2 referring to the judgment of the Privy
Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. The King,3 and observations of
Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan
Chukerbutty,4 this court observed that proper way to
approach a case involving confession of a co-accused is,
first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding
the confession altogether from consideration and see
whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based
on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the
confession, then it is not necessary to call the confession in
aid. This court further noted that cases may arise where the
judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it
stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to
sustain a conviction. In such an event, the judge may call in
2 AIR 1952 SC 159
3 76 Indian Appeals 147
4 38 Cal. 559
1
aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other
evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without
the aid of the confession, he would not be prepared to
accept.
Bhuboni Sahu vs The King on 17 February, 1949
In Kashmira Singh v. The State
of Madhya Pradesh,2 referring to the judgment of the Privy
Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. The King,3 and observations of
Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan
Chukerbutty,4 this court observed that proper way to
approach a case involving confession of a co-accused is,
first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding
the confession altogether from consideration and see
whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based
on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the
confession, then it is not necessary to call the confession in
aid. This court further noted that cases may arise where the
judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it
stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to
sustain a conviction. In such an event, the judge may call in
2 AIR 1952 SC 159
3 76 Indian Appeals 147
4 38 Cal. 559
1
aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other
evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without
the aid of the confession, he would not be prepared to
accept.