Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Raj Pal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 February, 2011
He has to look after 4 children of his brother
who has already expired and the other brother is handicapped.
Request has been made to take lenient view and to release the
convicts on probation. The Ld. Counsel for the convicts in support
of his arguments has relied upon the judgement delivered on
17062009 in Crl. A. No. 240/09 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in the case titled Raj Pal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and ors.; judgment
delivered on 18112010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.
State Of U.P vs Krishna Master & Ors on 3 August, 2010
In this context, a reliance is placed upon
the judgement reported as State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors.
2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground
FIR No. 47/06; State Vs. Mujmil & Anr. Page 14 of 21
for rejection of evidence in entirety.
Karamjit Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) on 26 March, 2003
In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the
judgments reported as Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi
Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311 and Ritesh Kumar Vs. State
of Goa, 2006 Cri. LJ (NOC) 61 (Bom). In the present case, though
there are some contradictions in the testimony of the said PWs yet
these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the
root or core of this case.