Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 168 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Ramjee Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 24 August, 2006

Km. Seema Azad vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2013

In these circumstances, the case laws, viz., Ramjee Rai vs State of Bihar-2007(2) SCC (Crl) 626, Badshah vs. state of U.P.; 2008(2) SCC (Crl) 712; Ram Gulam Chowdhry vs State of Bihar-2001; SCC (Crl) 1546; and Ramanand vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh-1981 SCC (Crl.) 197 relied by the prosecution are of no avail to it as in the instant case, there is no tangible evidence, either of a direct or of a circumstantial nature, in support of the fact that the murder has been committed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 6 November, 2015

"...The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar, has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence". (emphasis supplied) In our opinion, refusal of PW2 and PW9 to identify the appellant as the person apprehended at the spot by them cannot create any doubts as to the prosecution case to such effect. The appellant, as noted Crl.A.No.1582/2014 Page 20 of 28 earlier, has admitted his presence at the spot at the time of the incident. He claimed that he was taken from there to the police station and "falsely" arrested. His admission to above effect lends assurance to the word of PW27 about he being apprehended upon his custody being handed over by the public witnesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R K Gauba - Full Document

State Of H.P vs Prem Singh on 7 December, 2023

of "13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another rt and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar, has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vicky Rana vs State Of H.P on 25 July, 2024

47. It was submitted that in the present case, the Police had not conducted the DNA examination of the dead body to connect it with the deceased. Even the post-mortem examination on 14.11.2013 shows that the death could have been caused within less than 15 days of the post-mortem examination; therefore, the dead body cannot be connected to the deceased. This submission cannot be accepted. It is duly proved by the identification of the clothes that the dead body belonged to the deceased. The medical officer noticed that the dead body was highly putrefied and the cause of death could not be ascertained; hence, his opinion regarding the date of death cannot be relied upon. Even if it is assumed that the dead body did not belong to the deceased as contended on behalf of the defence, it will not assist the defence because the recovery of corpus delicti is not necessary in every case. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar (2006) 13 SCC 229 that corpus delicti need not be proved in a case of murder and where strong circumstantial evidence exists, the conviction can be recorded even in the absence of a dead body. It was observed:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

State vs Munshi Ram on 7 October, 2024

"This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar, has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their State vs. Munshi Ram FIR No. 350/2011, PS: Saket Page 11 of 15 testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrust- worthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

_________________________________________________________ vs Pratap Singh Alias Chotu on 7 March, 2025

"13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next