Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Maghar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 1975
Relying upon an earlier judgment in Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh [1954 SCR
1098], this Court again in Maghar Singh v. State of
Punjab [AIR 1975 SC 1320] held that the evidence in
the form of extra-judicial confession made by the
accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a
tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is
required only by way of abundant caution. If the court
believes the witness before whom the confession is made
and is satisfied that the confession was true and
voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on
such evidence alone.
Narayan Singh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 1985
In Narayan Singh v. State of M.P.
SACHIN MEHTA
[AIR 1985 SC 1678] this Court cautioned that it is not
2014.11.13 10:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRA-D-844-DB of 2009 -15-
open to the court trying the criminal case to start with
presumption that extra judicial confession is always a
weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of
the circumstances, the time when the confession is made
and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a
confession. The retraction of extra-judicial confession
which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by
itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon
such a confession."
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 1995
In case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 259, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ M.Upadhyaya vs State Of A.P.Tr.Pub.Prosecutor on 8 May, 2012
In para 42 of Munna Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of A.P.
Through Public Prosecutor 2012(6) SCC 174, Hon'ble supreme Court
spelled out the principles relating to examination of extra-judicial confession
as follows:-
Tarsem Kumar & Others vs Chandigarh Administration U.T on 13 February, 2013
We have cautiously and carefully examined the evidence led by
the prosecution, which when tested as per the well settled principles relating
to circumstantial evidence fails to bring home the guilt of the appellant and
prove the charges framed against him. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Tarsem Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court
Cases 367, while striking a note of caution while examining circumstantial
evidence, has observed as follows:-