Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Darya Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1963
"That apart as submitted by the learned public prosecutor, reviewing on the decision Darya Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 328) : 1965 (1) Cri LJ 350). The duty of the prosecution is normally to examine all the eye-witnesses but if the selection was made fairly and honestly and not with a view to suppress inconvenient witness from the witness box no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution."
Natasha Singh vs Cbi (State) on 8 May, 2013
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. C.B.I., reported in 2013 (2) UPCr.R 605, has stated that the scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection.
Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava And 19 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 26 November, 2019
12. Again in the case of Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P and others (2011) 11 SCR Page 893, the Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as follows: