cites: 125945809 doctypes: supremecourt

Mrinal Das & Ors vs State Of Tripura on 5 September, 2011

In the case of Mrinal Das And Others v. State of Tripura reported in (2011)9 SCC 479, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law, that the evidence of hostile witness need not be rejected in its entirety but may be relied on for corroboration. This is what the Supreme Court has held in this regard:

Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 854 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2010

In the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli And Others v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2011)11 SCC 111, the Supreme Court has held as below:

Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 130 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of A.P on 5 January, 2010

In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010)1 SCC 750, the Supreme Court has held as below:

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 697 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2013

In the case of Rohtash v. State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 589 :

Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 406 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Gopal Krishna Sharma And Others And ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Others on 16 September, 1992

262 and lastly (4) Gopal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009)3 SCC (Cri.) 1343 6.3 Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the judgment and order of the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. As per the settled position of law, if there is a possibility of two views on the basis of the evidence, the Court may adopt the view favourable to the accused. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 117 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 1976

16. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana [(1976)1 SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [(1976)4 SCC 233], Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka [{1980)1 SCC 30] and Khujji v. State of M.P. [(1991)3 SCC 627)].

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 541 - S M Ali - Full Document

Syad Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 1979

16. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana [(1976)1 SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [(1976)4 SCC 233], Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka [{1980)1 SCC 30] and Khujji v. State of M.P. [(1991)3 SCC 627)].

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 525 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Ramesh Prasad Misra And Anr on 13 August, 1996

In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra [(1996)10 SCC 360 this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon.

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 334 - Full Document

Balu Sonba Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 September, 2002

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2002)7 SCC 543], Gagan Kanjojia v. State of Punjab [2006)13 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006)2 SCC 450], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh [(2007)13 SCC 360] and Subbu Singh v. State [(2009)6 SCC 462].

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs Daroga Singh & Ors on 12 October, 2007

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2002)7 SCC 543], Gagan Kanjojia v. State of Punjab [2006)13 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006)2 SCC 450], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh [(2007)13 SCC 360] and Subbu Singh v. State [(2009)6 SCC 462].

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 180 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results