Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State Of Bihar on 4 May, 1965
17. It was next urged that the testimonies of the so called eye witnesses could not be
relied on, because of the vital discrepancy in the time, the absence of any mention about the
recovery of the key (for the Appellant's premises) or even any mention about it, pursuant to the
search conducted on him, after he allegedly confessed his crime to the police. These were vital
and went into the root of the matter, discrediting the prosecution version altogether. So far as
other witnesses were concerned, the extra judicial confession supposedly made to PW-6 and PW-
4 could not be relied on. Counsel submitted that PW-6 had not supported the prosecution
version, and therefore, his testimony could not be relied on. It was lastly urged that the most
important element, i.e the so-called recovery of the dead body, could not be believed, since the
omission to secure the key, when the statement was made by the Appellant, cast a cloud of
suspicion on the prosecution story. It was argued that no part of a first information report lodged
by the accused with the police could be admitted into evidence if it was in the nature of the
confessional statement; reliance was placed on the decision in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1966 SC 119.
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1