Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 1952
52. Now, another question, which strikes our mind is whether on the basis of contention of the appellants, Anup Nath and Chitta Ranjan Hazarika, the conviction as against appellant, Mukut Jyoti Mahanta can be sustained. The evidentiary value of confession and use of corroboration and prudence has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), which reads as under:
Bejiram Ingty vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 7 September, 1981
37. In this case it was held by this Court that it is not obligatory on the part of the Police Officer concerned in whose custody the person accused of an offence is/was, to record the information on the basis of which the fact is discovered. Verbal information so provided by the person accused of an offence can also be proved as against him. So, the decision in Alphus Munda appears to be per contra of the decision in the case of Joyram Ingty v. State of Assam (supra). We are not informed whether the conflict, appearing in both the cases in the context of application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been settled by larger bench of this Court.