Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.37 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Meharban And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 1996
In case of Meharban and others v. State of M.P. reported in (1996) 10 S.C.C. 615, it is held by Apex Court that "It is known that what the court has to adjudge is the substratum of the case and, in doing so, grain has to be separated from chaff. It is settled law that some improvements here and some exaggerations there or some minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case."
Kartik Malhar vs State Of Bihar on 15 November, 1995
In case of Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 S.C.C. 614 it is held in para 7 that "conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye witnesses particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye witness being present. Indeed, the courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence."
State Of Haryana vs Tek Singh And Others on 3 May, 1999
In case of State of Haryana v. Tek Singh and others reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 1742 it is held that "it would be difficult for any witness to state exactly which accused inflicted how many blows on deceased and exaggeration with regard to inflictions of blows by witnesses to be separated by taking into consideration overall facts in record. Further evidence of prosecution was fully corroborated by medical evidence and FIR."