Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The State Of Maharashtra vs Joseph Mingel Koli And Ors. on 1 August, 1996
13. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Joseph
Mingel Koli [(1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom.)] it has
been held as under:-
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
10. It is settled principle of law that if the trial Court
after due appreciation of the evidence comes to the
conclusion about the finding of acquittal then normally if
the finding is not perverse, this should not be interfered
with by the Appellate Court. For this, reliance can be
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka [2007
AIR SCW 1850], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid
down the legal principles for to entertain the appeal
against acquittal and held as under:-
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. Thr.Secretary on 19 August, 2009
In the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v.
State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2010 SC 589],
wherein it is observed as under:-
K. Prakashan vs P.K. Surenderan on 10 October, 2007
12. It is also observed in the cases of K. Prakashan v
P.K.Surenderan [(2008) 1 SCC 258] and T.
Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 1 SCC
401] as under :-
1