Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 30 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Himanshu Mohan Rai vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 7 March, 2017
In the case of Himanshu Mohan Rai Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another (2017) 4 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has taken into consideration its earlier judgment in the case
11
of Brijpal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 11 SCC 219
and has held that normally, if the eye witness' evidence is
absolutely acceptable, then such evidence could be accepted even
if there is some contradictions in medical or ballistic reports.
However, the oral evidence was not found acceptable in that case.
In this case medical evidence supports the evidence of eye
witness, which is absolutely unimpeachable.
Brijpal Singh vs State Of M.P on 29 April, 2003
In the case of Himanshu Mohan Rai Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another (2017) 4 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has taken into consideration its earlier judgment in the case
11
of Brijpal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 11 SCC 219
and has held that normally, if the eye witness' evidence is
absolutely acceptable, then such evidence could be accepted even
if there is some contradictions in medical or ballistic reports.
However, the oral evidence was not found acceptable in that case.
In this case medical evidence supports the evidence of eye
witness, which is absolutely unimpeachable.
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
22. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that
no particular number of witnesses is required to be examined to
prove a fact. The basic purport of the aforesaid provision is that a
single or solitary truthful witness may be sufficient to prove the
case of prosecution. In many cases, a single truthful witness may
far out weight a number of untruthful witnesses in term of
probative value that he may carry. This question was considered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedivelu Thevar
Vs. State of Madras, (1957) SCR 981, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down the criteria or consideration of
appreciating the evidence of solitary witness. For the first time,
14
the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to hold that witnesses can be
categorized in three categories viz. wholly reliable witnesses,
wholly unreliable witnesses and neither wholly reliable witnesses
nor wholly unreliable witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that as far as the first category of witnesses are concerned,
there is no difficulty for the Court to come to a conclusion.
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors on 20 October, 2016
In the case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11
SCC 195 the Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary value
of the inquest report prepared under Section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a substantive piece of evidence
and can only be looked into for testing the veracity of the
witnesses of inquest. The object of preparing such report is
merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death, namely, whether
it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or
machinery, etc. and stating in what manner, or by what weapon
or instrument, the injuries on the body appear to have been
inflicted.