Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2003
The above position was highlighted in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai
Nayak v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 1 SCC 64 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
7] , SCC pp. 67-68, paras 6-7. Looked at from any angle the
judgments of the trial court and the High Court do not suffer
from any infirmity to warrant interference.
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 2008
It is, thus, evident that the learned trial Court since has examined
the medical status and the capacity of understanding of P.W.1 and
thereafter, has considered his testimony considering him to be an eye
witness, the same, applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Virendra alias Buddhu & Anr. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra) & Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors Vs. State
of Maharashtra (supra), cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Virendra @ Buddhu & Anr vs State Of U.P on 17 October, 2008
It is, thus, evident that the learned trial Court since has examined
the medical status and the capacity of understanding of P.W.1 and
thereafter, has considered his testimony considering him to be an eye
witness, the same, applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Virendra alias Buddhu & Anr. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra) & Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors Vs. State
of Maharashtra (supra), cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Dattu Ramrao Sakhare And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 1997
In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 5
SCC 341 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 685] it was held as follows : (SCC
p. 343, para 5)
"5. ... A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts
and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Suryanarayana vs State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2001
(See Suryanarayana v. State
of Karnataka [(2001) 9 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 413].)
Behari Prasad Etc.Etc vs State Of Bihar on 9 January, 1996
In Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1996) 2
SCC 317 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 271] it was held that a case of
prejudice likely to be suffered mostly depends upon facts of
each case and no universal straitjacket formula should be
laid down that non-examination of the Investigating Officer
per se vitiates the criminal trial.
1