Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.35 seconds)
Ashok Dogra vs State on 13 February, 2015 cites

Prabhu Babaji Navle vs State Of Bombay on 19 September, 1955

"There is another aspect of the matter which has also escaped the notice of the High Court when it sustained the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC while acquitting accused Gokul of those charges. Though the accused Gokul and the appellant were individually charged under Sections 302 and 436 IPC they were convicted only under the alternative charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC by the Sessions Judge. Consequently, the Crl. Rev. P. 578/2006 Page 4 of 14 appellant's convictions can be sustained only if the High Court had sustained the convictions awarded to the accused Gokul also. Inasmuch as the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to accused Gokul and acquitted him, it follows that the appellant's convictions for the two substantive offences read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained because this is a case where the co- accused is a named person and he has been acquitted and by reason of it the appellant cannot be held to have acted conjointly with anyone in the commission of the offences. This position of law is well settled by this Court and we may only refer to a few decisions in this behalf vide Prabhu Babaji v. State of Bombay, Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Baul v. State of U.P."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

State Rep. By Inspector Of Police vs Saravanan & Anr on 14 October, 2008

In view of ratio of judgment in case of Saravanan (supra) and Prithu @ Prithvi Chand (supra), the contradictions and improvements pointed out are not material which could go to the root of the matter. The contradictions are not such which could discard the testimony of the complainant and her parents. The improvements are bound to occur due to passage of time and it is not possible for a human mind to recall each and every incident as Crl. Rev. P. 578/2006 Page 11 of 14 it happened.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 142 - M Sharma - Full Document

Prithu @ Priti Chand & Anr vs State Of H.P on 18 February, 2009

In view of ratio of judgment in case of Saravanan (supra) and Prithu @ Prithvi Chand (supra), the contradictions and improvements pointed out are not material which could go to the root of the matter. The contradictions are not such which could discard the testimony of the complainant and her parents. The improvements are bound to occur due to passage of time and it is not possible for a human mind to recall each and every incident as Crl. Rev. P. 578/2006 Page 11 of 14 it happened.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 83 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next