Pasru @ Ismail vs The State on 25 April, 2024
In the case of State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and others (2002) 9 SCC 537 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 92 (5.30 seconds)Documents citing
State Of Haryana vs Inder Singh And Ors. on 29 January, 2002
Girdhari Lal vs State Through Cbi on 17 December, 2018
"15. The case of the prosecution depends upon the testimony
of PW12 Sarojini. The substantive evidence on record is only
through this witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole
Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 188 of 203
witness. However, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Inder
Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 the testimony of a sole witness must
be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no
doubt in the mind of the Court.
Balwan Khokhar vs Cbi on 17 December, 2018
"15. The case of the prosecution depends upon the testimony
of PW12 Sarojini. The substantive evidence on record is only
through this witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole
Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 188 of 203
witness. However, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Inder
Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 the testimony of a sole witness must
be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no
doubt in the mind of the Court.
State Through Cbi vs Sajjan Kumar & Ors on 17 December, 2018
"15. The case of the prosecution depends upon the testimony
of PW12 Sarojini. The substantive evidence on record is only
through this witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole
Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 188 of 203
witness. However, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Inder
Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 the testimony of a sole witness must
be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no
doubt in the mind of the Court.
Krishan Khokar vs C B I on 17 December, 2018
"15. The case of the prosecution depends upon the testimony
of PW12 Sarojini. The substantive evidence on record is only
through this witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole
Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 188 of 203
witness. However, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Inder
Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 the testimony of a sole witness must
be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no
doubt in the mind of the Court.
Mahender Yadav vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 December, 2018
"15. The case of the prosecution depends upon the testimony
of PW12 Sarojini. The substantive evidence on record is only
through this witness. The law on the point is well settled that a
conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole
Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 188 of 203
witness. However, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Inder
Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 the testimony of a sole witness must
be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no
doubt in the mind of the Court.
Jai Ram Harijan vs State Of U.P. on 15 February, 2019
In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537, Court held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.
Ashfaq vs State Of U.P. on 15 February, 2019
In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537, Court held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.
Furqan vs State Of U.P. on 27 March, 2019
Further, in State of Haryana v. Inder Singh3, it was laid down that the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.
Harnam Singh vs State Of M.P. on 3 June, 2019
18. Shri F.A.Shah, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent
State, on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and
places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and
others as reported in (2015) 15 SCC 77 wherein in para 15 it has
19 Criminal Appeal Nos.831/07, 852/07 & 178/10
been held that even if there is single eye-witness account, then as
per the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Inder
Singh as reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537 the testimony of a sole
witness can be relied on if it is confidence inspiring and beyond
suspicion leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.