Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.39 seconds)Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Aftab Ahmad Anasari vs State Of Uttaranchal on 12 January, 2010
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Chander Prakash @ Chander vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 16 March, 1995
9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct
of the Accused person is relevant, if such conduct
influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant
fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that
the Accused pointed out to the police officer, the place
where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and
on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be
admissible as conduct Under Section 8 irrespective of the
fact whether the statement made by the Accused
contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct
falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this
Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.). Even if we
hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused-
Appellants (Exts. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible Under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant Under
Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and
PWs 1, 2, 7 and PW 4 the spot mahazar witness that the
Accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the
place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible
piece of evidence Under Section 8 as the conduct of the
accused. Presence of A-1 and A-2 at a place where
ransom demand was to be fulfilled and their action of
fleeing on spotting the police party is a relevant
circumstance and are admissible Under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 1975
In Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra,
while dealing with the ambit and scope of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act, the Court held that:
Ganu Chandra Kashid vs Emperor on 17 November, 1931
13. At one time it was held that the expression "fact
discovered" in the Section is restricted to a physical or
material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and
that it does not include a mental fact (see Sukhan v.
Emperor, Ganu Chandra Kashid v. Emperor).