Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)Section 377 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 464 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sadhu Singh Alias Surya Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 September, 1978
In the case of Sadhu Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1978 SC 1S06) :
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(AIR 1984 SC 1622) the Supreme Court in para 48 at page 1636
observed :
"In view of the close relationship and affection
any person in the position of the witness would
naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add
facts which may not have been stated to them at
all. Not that this is done consciously but even
unconsciously the love and affection for the
deceased would create a psychological hatred
against the supposed murderer and, therefore,
the Court has to examine such evidence with very
great care and caution. Even if the witnesses
were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the
whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of
revenge or any nemesis against the appellant
person and in this process certain facts which
may not or could not have been stated may be
imagined to have been stated unconsciously by
16
the witnesses in order to see that the offender is
punished. This is human psychology and no one
can help it."
Muthu Naicker And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 1978
In the case of Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1978 SC
1647) the Supreme Court observed :
"In a faction ridden society where an occurrence
takes place involving rival factions it is but
inevitable that the evidence would be of a
partisan nature. In such a situation to reject the
entire evidence on the sole ground that it is
partisan is to shut one's eyes to the realities of
the rural life in our country. Large number of
appellant would go unpunished, if such an easy
course is charted."
State Of U.P. vs Ballabh Das And Ors. on 2 August, 1985
Again in the case of U.P. v. Ballabh Das (AIR 1985 SC 1384) the
Supreme Court in paras 3 and 5 at page 385 observed :
"There is no law which says that in the absence
of any independent witness, the evidence of
17
interested witnesses should be thrown out at the
behest or should not be relied upon for convicting
an appellant. What the law requires is that where
the witnesses are interested, the Court should
approach their evidence with care and caution in
order to exclude the possibility of false
implication. We might also mention that the
evidence of interested witnesses is not like that of
an approver which is presumed to be tainted and
requires corroboration but the said evidence is as
good as any other evidence. It may also be
mentioned that in a faction ridden village, as in
the instant case as mentioned by us earlier, it will
really be impossible to find independent persons
to come forward and give evidence and in a large
number of such cases only partisan witnesses
would be natural and probable witnesses."
State Of U.P. vs Brahma Das on 19 August, 1986
In the case of State of U.P. v. Brahma Das (AIR 1986 SC 1769) the
Supreme Court in para 5 at page 1972 observed :
"...We are told that there were two factions and
there was history of enmity between them. Each
faction had lost one of its members in the course
of the murder which were committed in the past.
But then this is possibly the root cause of the
occurrence resulting in the murder of the victim.
M/S. Badri Prasad Jagan Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P., ... on 20 September, 1985
And the evidence of the witnesses cannot be
disbelieved solely on this ground as per the law
declared by this Court in numerous
pronouncements (Badri v State of U. P., 1975
SCC (Cri) 644; AIR 1975 SC 1985; AIR 1971 SC
2156) To use the language of Jaganmohan
Reddy, J. (in Himachal Pradesh v. Om Prakash,
19
(1972) 2 SCR 765 (786) : AIR 1972 SC 975),
there is in our view no justification for the High
Court in jettisoning this cogent evidence of a
conclusive nature on mere conjectures and on the
omnibus ground that the witnesses were not
independent or impartial which as we have shown
is without justification."