Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
State vs . Muzafar Hussain & Ors. Fir No. 325/93, ... on 30 April, 2012 cites

State Of Jharkhand And Ors. vs Muzaffar Hussain on 4 April, 2006

5. PW3 ASI. Balwinder Singh, PW­6 Ct. Suresh Kumar and PW­7 Ct. Sukh Lal are the recovery witnesses of the stolen aluminum plates that were recovered on 12/10/93. The said recovery witnesses have consistently deposed and corroborated/proved the chain of events as alleged by the prosecution that State Vs. Muzafar Hussain & Ors. FIR No. 325/93, PS. Model Town,U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, Page No.4 resulted in the respective recoveries of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused persons. They have proved the seizure memo of the stolen articles that were recovered from the accused Raju @ Delhi, as Ex.PW­3/A. They have also proved the seizure memo of the stolen articles that were recovered from the possession of the accused Raju S/o Sh. Maya Ram and the accused Muzafer Hussain as Ex.PW­3/B. The seizure memo vide which the stolen property that was recovered from the accused Bhoop Singh was proved as Ex.PW­3/H. The said witnesses have testified that all the accused persons were arrested in their presence and they correctly identified all the accused persons in the court. PW­3 ASI. Balwinder Singh identified the case property during his deposition.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Joseph vs State Of Karala on 3 December, 2002

However, the recovery witness/IO PW­5 SI. Ram Singh was duly cross­examined by all the accused persons, but despite cross examination his credibility could not be impeached by them. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence is to be weighed and not counted. The conviction can be based on the trustworthy/credible sole testimony of the prosecution witness. The findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Joseph V. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465 are relevant and reproduced as under :­ "When there is a sole witness to the incident his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when the prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye­witness, it should be wholly reliable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2007

The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of its judgments has held that testimony of police official stands on equal footing as that of any other witness and his evidence should also be appreciated and weighed in the similar manner as that of any other witness. There is no rule of law whereby the police official can be straight away termed as dishonest witness. However, the court should be extra cautious at the time of believing the uncorroborated testimony of police official. This does not necessarily mean that the conviction of the accused can not be based on the sole testimony of police official. I find support from the findings given by Hon'ble Apex court in the case titled as Girja Prasad v. State of MP (AIR 2007 SC 3106) wherein it was held that :­ "It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the State Vs. Muzafar Hussain & Ors. FIR No. 325/93, PS. Model Town,U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC, Page No.9 touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a police official but it is not the law that the police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applied as much in favour of a police official as any other persons. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence".
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 670 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1