Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995
In drawing the above conclusion we have drawn
sustenance from the judgment of this Court in Gulab Chand Vs. State of
M.P. ... ...”
(emphasis supplied)
Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mukund @ Kundu Mishra & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 1997
In this context, it may be profitable to advert to the following
paragraph from Mukund (supra) :
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 1998
14. The fact remains that the appellants were arrested in
Virudhachalam and in their confession, they have stated that the lorry has
15/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.485 of 2018 & 127 of 2021
been parked near Newton's (A2's) house in Kanniyakumari District.
Therefore, the police had to rush to Kanniyakumari District along with the
accused to recover the lorry, for which, they had taken with them
Radhakrishnan (P.W.14-V.A.O.) and Paramasivam (not examined). Much
attack was mounted on this by the learned counsel for the appellants, who
contended that the police should have asked a local person to be a witness
for the seizure. This criticism has been answered by the Supreme Court in
Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(1998)3 SCC 625] as under :