Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 301 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Obula Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 1980

Randhir vs State Of M.P. on 3 August, 2021

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 101 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Rampal Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 5 March, 2021

"16. In this case, we find that the trial court had rejected the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 merely because they were interested witnesses being the brother and father of the deceased. But it is well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. It only requires scrutiny with more care and caution, so that neither the guilty escape nor the innocent wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, it can be acted upon. If it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it ought to be rejected. Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should have corroboration in regard to material particulars before it is accepted. (Vide Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 675 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 795] , Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi [(2002) 4 SCC 76 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 728] and Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [(2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] ............."
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - M Misra - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Pathak vs State Of M.P. on 5 August, 2022

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 82 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Pancham vs State Of M.P. on 13 August, 2021

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Rustam Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 31 October, 2022

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 253 - Cited by 74 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

State Of M.P. vs Dinesh Singh Yadav on 31 October, 2022

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 45 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Liyakatuddin vs The State Of M.P. on 21 August, 2018

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should 18 CRA No.705/1999 be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Chimpi @ Narendra Yadav vs State Of M.P. on 21 November, 2022

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of 37 conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 112 - Cited by 10 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Ramgopal vs State Of M.P. on 23 November, 2021

In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 683-84, para 13) "13. ... it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next