Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Meera Versus State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai
Jayaben Versus Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr.
JASDEEP SINGH @ JASSU VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
RAJESH PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Versus Dilip Uttam Jayabhay
Saddam @ Saddu vs. State of MP
Law laid down - 1. There is a clear distinction between theft and robbery, as theft is robbery when there is an element of physical injury or an attempt to cause physical injury or of fear of causing the same. It is also apparent that in the case of robbery, not only the person who voluntarily causes a wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint, is liable to be prosecuted under Section Full Judgment
Manoj Parmar vs. Union of India and others
Law laid down - Held: 1. Section 407 of Cr.P.C. is an assurance of fair trial. 2. A litigant cannot choose a Bench of his choice. It is only an exceptional circumstances, where the existence of “bias” or “likelihood of bias” when apparent on the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court can invoke its discretionary power under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. In the absence of an allegation of “pre-existing bias”, the power of transfer of a case should normally Full Judgment
Roshan and others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Govindan vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BRIJMANI DEVI VERSUS PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.
Ram Ratan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
PARVATI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
ANITA RANI Versus ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Shiv Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - For the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the conditions of Section 63 has to be satisfied first then only secondary evidence can be allowed. Full Judgment