Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
22. At this stage, we would like to refer the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it been has observed in paragraph 150
to 160 as under:
Hanumant vs The State Of Madhya ... on 23 January, 1952
160. This Court, therefore, has in no
way departed from the five conditions laid down in
Hanumant's case (AIR 1952 SC 343) (supra).
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.169 of 2018 dt.13-12-2024
28/34
It may be noted here that this Court
indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or
should' and not 'may be' established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between
'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973
SC 2622) where the observations were made:
Anant Chintaman Lagu vs The State Of Bombay on 14 December, 1959
Dharambir Singh vs State [Along With Criminal Appeal 95 Of ... on 11 May, 2005
To quote a few cases -- Tufail case (1969) 3 SCC
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.169 of 2018 dt.13-12-2024
30/34
198 (supra), Ramgopal's case (AIR 1972 SC 656)
(supra), Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. State of
Bombay (Criminal Appeal No 120 of 1957 decided
on 19-2-1958), Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No 98 of 1958 decided on 4-11-
1958).