Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 798 (2.82 seconds)Documents citing
Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951
Parmeshwar Das @ Bhura vs State Of M.P. on 26 April, 2022
This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court
endeavoured to dispel in -- 'Rameshwar v. State of
Rajasthan' (AIR at p. 59). We find, however, that it
unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the
courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
Nagaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 January, 2007
This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one
which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State
of Rajasthan' (AIR at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still
persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of
counsel."
State Of M.P. vs Dinesh Singh Yadav on 31 October, 2022
'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' (AIR at p. 59). We
find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in
the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments
of counsel."
Rustam Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 31 October, 2022
'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' (AIR at p. 59). We
find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in
the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments
of counsel."
Chimpi @ Narendra Yadav vs State Of M.P. on 21 November, 2022
'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' (AIR at p. 59). We
find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in
the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments
of counsel."
Nannha @ Rais & Another vs State Of U.P. on 24 August, 2018
"We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in 'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
Kailash Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 October, 2021
The observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. The
State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54) were, ''The rule, which
according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that
corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but
that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence,
except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with
it, must be present to the mind of the judge...".
State vs Sunil Kumar on 24 December, 2019
The above observation has been made by this Court
relying on the earlier observations made by this Court
in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [1952 SCR 377,
386 : AIR 1952 SC 54 : 1952 Cri LJ 547] with regard
to corroboration of girl's testimony and version. Vivian
Bose, J., who spoke for the Court observed as follows:
State vs . : Lalit @ Lucky on 10 October, 2018
"We are unable to agree with the learned
Judges of the High Court that the testimony of
the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If
the foundation for such an observation is based
on the fact that the witnesses are women and
that the fate of seven men hangs on their
testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is
grounded on the reason that they are closely
related to the deceased we are unable to
concur. This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of
this Court endeavoured to dispel in
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952
Supreme Court 54 at p.59. We find, however,
that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the
judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the
arguments of counsel."