Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Ramprasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2020 cites

Mohan Singh vs Prem Singh And Anr on 1 October, 2002

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh and another reported in (2002) 10 SCC 236; Sanatan Naskar and another Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 8 SCC 249; and Dehal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.A. No.1215 of 2005) and Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.A. No.1216 of 2005) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 85 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered nature and value of statement of accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it is held that this cannot be treated as evidence under Section 3 of Evidence Act, as it is recorded without administering oath. It is not a substantive piece of evidence or a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. Though, the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of such statement but certainly it can be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 198 - Full Document

Sanatan Naskar & Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 8 July, 2010

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh and another reported in (2002) 10 SCC 236; Sanatan Naskar and another Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 8 SCC 249; and Dehal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.A. No.1215 of 2005) and Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.A. No.1216 of 2005) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 85 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered nature and value of statement of accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it is held that this cannot be treated as evidence under Section 3 of Evidence Act, as it is recorded without administering oath. It is not a substantive piece of evidence or a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. Though, the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of such statement but certainly it can be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 117 - S Kumar - Full Document

Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh and another reported in (2002) 10 SCC 236; Sanatan Naskar and another Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 8 SCC 249; and Dehal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.A. No.1215 of 2005) and Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.A. No.1216 of 2005) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 85 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered nature and value of statement of accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it is held that this cannot be treated as evidence under Section 3 of Evidence Act, as it is recorded without administering oath. It is not a substantive piece of evidence or a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. Though, the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of such statement but certainly it can be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4774 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document
1