Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.24 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Nawab Hussain on 4 April, 1977
In such Digitally
signed by
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
e-FIR No. 4964/2017 State Vs. Nawab etc. Page 10 of 12 TYAGI Date:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Shiv Narayan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 10 May, 2001
21. Further, the stolen property had been recovered near
a Nala, Jala Kothai, Meerut from an open space. Though there is
nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the
statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the article
was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others".
However, it is important that such article is not ordinarily visible
or accessible to others. On this aspect, reliance is placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shiv Narayan
vs State (NCT Of Delhi) [93 (2001) DLT 681], wherein it has
been held as follows:
Trimbak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 1953
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also declined to
consider the recovery of the object from an open space as
possession of the accused in Trimbak vs State Of Madhya
Pradesh [ AIR 1954 SC 39], wherein it held as follows: