Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
State vs . Akhilesh & Ors. ­ Sc No. 27 Of 2010 1/35 on 28 July, 2012 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors on 26 August, 1987

45. These contradictions cannot be held to be minor. Firstly, it is not clear whether complainant came to Delhi on 6th, 9th or on 12th September, 2008. Admittedly, he had telephonically talked with Meena (deceased). The call detail record of the telephone of PW­2 and the deceased would have shown, whether they State Vs. Akhilesh & Ors. ­ SC No. 27 of 2010 26/35 Unique ID No. 02406R0221352011 had actually talked or not. Evidence of the complainant shows that the deceased was not willing to accompany the accused persons at the other place i.e. Hari Nagar, where he wanted to shift and significantly, she had not made any other complaint to her brother (PW­2), soon before the alleged incident on 09th, September, 2008. This evidence indicates that the deceased was not willing to join her husband at Hari Nagar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 228 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002

In support, he referred Mani Kumar Thappa Vs. State of Sikkim, AIR 2002, SC 2920, wherein it was observed that "it is a well settled principle in law that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. What is therefore required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other fatum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be trace".
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

Baby Kandayanathil vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 1993

PP relied upon Baby Kandayanathil Vs. State of Kerala, 1993 CRI.L.J 2605, a case u/s 302 and 201/34 IPC, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the Learned Trial Judge has put preliminary questions to each of the witnesses and after satisfying that they were answering questions intelligently without any fear whatsoever, proceeded to record the evidence. In the chief examination, each of the witness has given all the details of occurrence. There has been searching cross examination and the witness with stood the same. We had also gone through the evidence and we do not see any reason to doubt their evidence. They are the most natural witnesses, who had been present in the house at the night time".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 58 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next