Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P on 14 September, 2010
In Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259], the
Supreme Court held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2008
[Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State
of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of
Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v.
State of U.P., Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v.
State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.
and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010
[Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State
of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of
Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v.
State of U.P., Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v.
State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.
and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
Jarnail Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2009
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009(9) SCC 719 where the
Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the
testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier
judgments held as under:
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa And Others vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 1994
In
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka,
this Court has held that the deposition of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 11 of 23
major contradictions and discrepancies, for the
reason that his presence on the scene stands
established in case it is proved that he suffered the
injury during the said incident.
State Of U.P vs Kishan Chand & Ors on 20 August, 2004
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, a similar view
has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a
stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy.
The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence, lends support to his
testimony that he was present during the occurrence.
C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010
23. Omission to send blood stained clothes of injured or weapon of
offence, can at best be, said to be a lapse on the part of Investigating
Officer of the case. Hon‟ble Supreme Court held in Ram Bihari Yadav
Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1850 and in C. Muniappan and Ors.
Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2010 IX AD (SC) 317 that defects in
investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
1