Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Nar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2014
[Emphasis supplied]
In Nar Singh (supra), the supreme court had reproduced
the following passage from Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793, where the apex
court has unambiguously observed as under:
Wasim Khan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 12 March, 1956
17. So far as Section 313 CrPC is concerned,
undoubtedly, the attention of the accused must
specifically be brought to inculpable pieces of evidence to
give him an opportunity to offer an explanation, if he
chooses to do so. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Wasim Khan v. State of U.P. : AIR 1956 SC 400 and Bhoor
Singh v. State of Punjab : (1974) 4 SCC 754 held that
every error or omission in compliance of the provisions of
Section 342 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure does not
necessarily vitiate trial. The accused must show that some
prejudice has been caused or was likely to have been
caused to him.
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
[Emphasis supplied]
In Nar Singh (supra), the supreme court had reproduced
the following passage from Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793, where the apex
court has unambiguously observed as under:
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014
In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma vs. State
of Tripura, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747, the apex court has
observed by way of illustration as under: