Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 1998
In Surinder
Kumar V. State of Punjab 1999 CLJ,267 (SC), the extra
judicial confession was allegedly made on 05.07.1992. An
application for remand of the accused, was moved, on
10.07.1992 by PW10. The accused was also produced before
the Magistrate concerned, on that day. However, the factum
was not disclosed, in the remand paper, that the accused had
made an extra-judicial confession before PW-6. The trial
Court, however, relied upon the said extra-judicial confession.
The matter was also brought to the notice of the High Court,
in appeal, that since there was no mention of the extra-
judicial confession, in the remand paper dated 10.07.1992, it
could be safely held, that no such confession was made by the
accused. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal. In
appeal, before the Apex Court, the same very point was again
highlighted. The Apex Court held that since no mention of
the extra-judicial confession dated 5.7.1992 was made, in the
remand paper dated 10.07.1992 it could be held that such a
circumstance was fabricated. Thus, the observations made in
Crl. Appeal No.541-DB of 2005
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Datar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 19 December, 1973
In Datar Singh V. State of Punjab AIR
1971 (Supreme Court) 1193, the principle of law, laid
down, was to the effect, that it is often difficult, for the Courts
of Law,to arrive at the actual truth, in criminal cases. The
Judicial process can only operate on firm foundation of actual
Crl. Appeal No.541-DB of 2005
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jaspal Singh @ Pali vs The State Of Punjab on 8 October, 1996
In
Jaspal Singh alias Pali V. State of Punjab 1977(2)
RCR 70 (SC), it was observed, that the accused had no
reason to go to the witness,and confess his guilt, by reposing
confidence, in a person, who is inimically disposed towards
him.
Rahim Beg And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 20 April, 1972
In
Rahim Beg V. State of Uttar Pradesh 1972 (Crl.L.J.),
1260, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that
extra judicial confession, is a weak piece of evidence, and it is
most dangerous, to rely upon the same, to convict the
accused,without corroboration.