Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.38 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Satish Kumar Batra & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2009
In the case of Satish Kumar Vs. State 1995 (3) CC
Cases 252 (HC), blood group on the weapon of offence could not
be deciphered by the experts and only human blood was found on
that article. It was held that it cannot be linked with crime in
question.
State Of M.P vs Ramesh And Anr on 18 March, 2011
Similarly, in the case of State Vs. Ramesh 1998 II AD
(Delhi) 42, it was held that non-joining of independent witnesses
to recoveries from places though such witnesses were available,
would be nothing short of violation or sub-section (4) of Section
100 of the Code and such recoveries cannot have any semblance
of connecting the accused with the crime and proving the guilt.
Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002
In
the case of Chander Pal Vs. State 1999 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal)
150, there was recovery of clothes of the deceased at the
instance of accused persons. No public witness was joined though
available. The Hon'ble Court held that this was violation of Section
100 (4) Cr. PC and such recovery cannot be used to prove the
guilt. The Hon'ble Court observed as under:-
Surjit Singh Alias Gurmit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 1992
In the case
of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 110, a watch
belonging to the deceased and one dagger which was found to be
stained with human blood were recovered at the instance of the
accused. It was held by the Supreme Court that the said recovery
by itself, does not connect the accused person with the murder of
the deceased. It was further held that said circumstance may
create some suspicion but the same cannot take the place of
proof.
Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati Etc. vs Chhatrasinh And Ors. on 10 February, 1977
In the decision reported as Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati
Vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1753, the Supreme Court
held that in the absence of any other evidence the circumstances
of seizure of blood stained shirt and dhoti from the person of an
accused and dharias from the house of the accused are wholly
insufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused.