citedby: 786761

Durga Prasad@ Bablu vs State on 28 August, 2009

A. Nos. 679/01, 731/01, 168/03 and 204/03 Page 23 of 39 the clothes of PWs 8 & 9. In the absence of any such cross- examination of the investigating officer in this respect it also cannot be said that the investigating officer had not done his job diligently. On this aspect of the matter we may usefully make a reference to the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in the case of "Bur Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab", 2008 (11) Apex Decisions (SC) 161 in para no. 14:

Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 5 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

State vs . Krishan Gopal on 29 March, 2014

It is also held in case titled as Bur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 2008 94) R.C.R. (Criminal) 834: 2008 96) R.A.J. 197 that : "Falsity of particular material witness of material particular would not ruit it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be discarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence".

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No: 22/25/11/08 vs . on 30 April, 2009

"evidence of an injured witness can not be rejected on the ground of interestedness .'' In another case reported at 1993 Cr.L.J 187 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that : " Evidence of a sole eye witness who received injuries must be wholly reliable.'' Further in case titled Bur Singh vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) RCR Criminal 835 , while discussing the parameters for evaluating the evidentiary value of a relative or interested witness Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "(1)Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence can not per se be discarded.

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munesh vs State Of U.P. on 23 April, 2019

The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Athar vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2019

18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Sudarshan And Others vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2019

But once such witness is scrutinized with a little care and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701; Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan vs. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52) The Supreme Court in Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab5 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Ramesh vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2019

It is settled position of law that the evidence of an interested witness should not be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. All that the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, is that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care. It has to be realized that related and interested witness would be the last persons to screen the real culprits and falsely substitute innocent ones in their places. Indeed there may be circumstances where only interested evidence may be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence takes place at midnight in the house then the only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be the family members. In such cases, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. But once such witness is scrutinized with a little care and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701; Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan vs. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52) The Supreme Court in Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab9 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Ram Kishan And Others vs State Of Up on 19 September, 2019

It is settled position of law that the evidence of an interested witness should not be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. All that the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, is that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care. It has to be realized that related and interested witness would be the last persons to screen the real culprits and falsely substitute innocent ones in their places. Indeed there may be circumstances where only interested evidence may be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence takes place at midnight in the house then the only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be the family members. In such cases, it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. But once such witness is scrutinized with a little care and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701; Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan vs. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52) The Supreme Court in Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab2 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Lal Bahadur vs State on 18 September, 2019

23. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Mahendra vs State on 25 September, 2019

20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 65 has held that merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results