Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of U.P on 7 October, 2013
152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
K.S.Panduranga vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2013
152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Bani Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 July, 1996
152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
State Of U.P.& Anr vs Santosh Kumar Mishra & Anr on 3 August, 2010
16. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheets and committed the case to the Court of Sessions after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was numbered as S.T. No. 71 of 1980 (State vs. Santosh Kumar and another) under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC.
Laxman vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2002
In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 6 SCC 710 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1491] wherein the Constitution Bench, while dealing with the concept of dying declaration, the fitness of mind and the necessity of endorsement by doctor, has stated thus : (SCC p. 713, para 3)
"3. ... The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable."
Babulal And Ors. vs State Of M.P. on 25 February, 2002
In Babulal v. State of M.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 490 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 620 : AIR 2004 SC 846] while dealing with the value of dying declaration in evidence, this Court has observed thus : (SCC p. 494, para 7)
"7. ... A person who is facing imminent death, with even a shadow of continuing in this world practically non-existent, every motive of falsehood is obliterated. The mind gets altered by most powerful ethical reasons to speak only the truth. Great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying person because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person. The maxim is 'a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth' (nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri). Mathew Arnold said, 'truth sits on the lips of a dying man'. The general principle on which the species of evidence is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and mind induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth; situation so solemn that law considers the same as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of justice."
Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 1998
"26. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record suggests that the investigation has not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner. There are various areas where a properly investigation could have strengthened its case. In the case of Paras Yadav & ors. vs. State of Bihar, the Apex Court observed as under:(SCC P.130, Para 8)
"Para 8 - ..the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the following observations of this Court from the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others: (SCC pp. 523-24, para 13).
Prem Kumar Gulati vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 23 September, 2014
In Prem Kumar Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 646, the Apex Court has held as under :