Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.24 seconds)
Amar Mishra vs State Of Delhi on 23 September, 2011 cites

Malleshi vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2004

The essence of abduction as noted above is causing to stay in isolation and demand for ransom. The demand in the present case has already been made by conveying it to the victim. In Netra Pal case1 the High Court noted that there was no demand to pay. The factual position in that case as noted above is that the victim was a child to whom no demand could have been made. In that background the High Court took the view that Section 364-A has no application as no demand had been communicated. The position factually is different here. Ultimately the question to be decided is "what was the intention? Was it demand of ransom?" There can be no definite manner in which demand is to be made. Who pays the ransom is not the determinative fact, as discussed supra."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 82 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Vallabhapuram Ravi on 14 September, 1984

42. Considerable arguments were made during the course of hearing that the ransom call was not shown to have been made by any of the accused; there was no connection between either of them and the call received by PW-1. The decision in Mahavir Prasad Verma v. Surinder Kaur, AIR 1982 SC 1043 and of a Division Bench of this Court, in State v. Ravi, 2000 (1) AD (Del) 222 have ruled that tape recorded conversations can be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed to by parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence (of such conversation) the tape recording is not proper evidence, and cannot be relied on. Similarly, the judgments reported as R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 417; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, AIR 1975 SC 1788 and Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 show what are the material tests for a tape recording to be admissible, as evidence. The Court had indicated that the fulfillment of the following preconditions was essential for a tape recording to be admissible in a trial:
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 70 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors on 25 April, 1975

42. Considerable arguments were made during the course of hearing that the ransom call was not shown to have been made by any of the accused; there was no connection between either of them and the call received by PW-1. The decision in Mahavir Prasad Verma v. Surinder Kaur, AIR 1982 SC 1043 and of a Division Bench of this Court, in State v. Ravi, 2000 (1) AD (Del) 222 have ruled that tape recorded conversations can be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed to by parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence (of such conversation) the tape recording is not proper evidence, and cannot be relied on. Similarly, the judgments reported as R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 417; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, AIR 1975 SC 1788 and Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 show what are the material tests for a tape recording to be admissible, as evidence. The Court had indicated that the fulfillment of the following preconditions was essential for a tape recording to be admissible in a trial:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 120 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next