Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
Sumer Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 15 April, 2026 cites

State Of U.P vs Zakaullah on 12 December, 1997

12. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court. Even if PW2 is partially hostile to the prosecution case, the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses was rightly relied on by the trial court to conclude regarding the guilt of the accused. It was also pointed out that Ext. PW11/B, the FSL Report also remains unchallenged. Reference was made to the dictums in State of U.P. v Zakaullah AIR1998 SC 1474 and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691, in support of the arguments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 183 - Full Document

N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000

31.1 Here, even if certain aspects of direct evidence, such as PW2 partially turning hostile, are not fully consistent, the circumstantial evidence clearly establishes acceptance of money. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, the positive phenolphthalein test, the presence of the accused at the spot, and the sequence of events immediately before and after the transaction together form a complete chain of circumstances. These circumstances lead to a clear and reasonable inference that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money. As further explained in M. Narsinga Rao (supra), the Court is entitled to draw factual presumptions from proved circumstances, and once Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006 Page 37 of 46 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:15.04.2026 13:20:24 such an inference of acceptance is drawn, it becomes the basis for invoking the legal presumption under Section 20. The accused herein has failed to rebut the presumption by offering any convincing or plausible explanation. He has simply denied the allegations without explaining how the marked currency notes came into his possession. Further, no enmity or plausible motive has been shown by the defence as to why PW2 or PW8 would falsely implicate the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 239 - Full Document

Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022

23. The question that arises is whether the prosecution has established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused while discharging his official duty and thereby attracting the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is well-settled that both the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant constitute foundational facts which must be proved by the prosecution. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006 Page 21 of 46 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:15.04.2026 13:20:24 of offer by the bribe giver and demand by the public servant would not constitute an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 160 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2018

Though PW2 claimed that he was unable to recall wash of which hand of the accused had been taken, he admitted that the wash turned pink. Thus, his testimony supports the prosecution case on several important aspects of the transaction. It is well settled that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those portions of the testimony which appears credible and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab; AIR 2013 SC 2408, Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.; AIR 2012 SC 1979, Prithi v. State of Haryana; (2010) 8 SCC 536, Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.; AIR 2004 SC 1720, Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat; AIR 2000 SC 210). Therefore, despite some inconsistency regarding the initial demand, the testimony of PW2 when read with the remaining evidence on record remains consistent and does inspire confidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 543 - N Sinha - Full Document

Lella Srinivasa Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 February, 2004

Though PW2 claimed that he was unable to recall wash of which hand of the accused had been taken, he admitted that the wash turned pink. Thus, his testimony supports the prosecution case on several important aspects of the transaction. It is well settled that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those portions of the testimony which appears credible and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab; AIR 2013 SC 2408, Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.; AIR 2012 SC 1979, Prithi v. State of Haryana; (2010) 8 SCC 536, Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.; AIR 2004 SC 1720, Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat; AIR 2000 SC 210). Therefore, despite some inconsistency regarding the initial demand, the testimony of PW2 when read with the remaining evidence on record remains consistent and does inspire confidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 71 - B P Singh - Full Document

Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 1999

Though PW2 claimed that he was unable to recall wash of which hand of the accused had been taken, he admitted that the wash turned pink. Thus, his testimony supports the prosecution case on several important aspects of the transaction. It is well settled that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those portions of the testimony which appears credible and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab; AIR 2013 SC 2408, Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.; AIR 2012 SC 1979, Prithi v. State of Haryana; (2010) 8 SCC 536, Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.; AIR 2004 SC 1720, Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat; AIR 2000 SC 210). Therefore, despite some inconsistency regarding the initial demand, the testimony of PW2 when read with the remaining evidence on record remains consistent and does inspire confidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 132 - M B Shah - Full Document

M.L Narasinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 January, 2022

32. Further, the materials on record show that when the accused was apprehended immediately after the trap, he did not raise any protest or claim that he was innocent. He did not offer any explanation at that time as to how the tainted money came into his possession. When tainted money is recovered from the accused, and he fails to give any explanation, a presumption arises that the money was accepted as illegal gratification [See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., 2001 SCC (Cri) 258].
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi vs The State Of A.P. on 30 September, 2022

38. Reliance has been placed by the defence on the dictum in Mir Mustafa (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction in a trap case on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including lack of corroboration between the complainant and the panch witness, contradictions in the trap proceedings, and the absence of reliable scientific evidence to show that the accused had actually handled the tainted currency notes. It was also noted that there was a Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006 Page 44 of 46 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:15.04.2026 13:20:24 possibility of the complainant planting the money, as he had access to the bag of the accused. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that when the foundational facts are doubtful, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be raised. However, the said dictum has no application to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the prosecution has clearly established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through the consistent testimony of PW8 and the admission of payment by PW2. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, along with the positive phenolphthalein test, further strengthens the prosecution case. There is no material(s) to suggest any possibility of planting of money or any serious inconsistency affecting the core of the case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1