Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (0.30 seconds)
Briefly Stating vs Ashok Kumar on 23 December, 2022 cites

Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979

In the judgment Suraj Mal v. State (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that whether witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of such circumstances, no conviction can be passed on the evidence of such witnesses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 445 - S M Ali - Full Document

Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 March, 2011

In the judgment of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not wholly unreliable and accurate voice identification is much more difficult then visual identification. It is prone to such extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing with the reality can be accordingly replaced by fiction, therefore, the Court have to be extremely cautious basing conversation purely on the voice identification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 144 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs C.B.I on 22 November, 2013

71. The judgment of Ashok Aggarwal v. CBI, is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case relevant documents were not placed before the Sanctioning Authority and further the draft order and sanction order were found verbatim same. Here, PW6, Shri Udai Pratap, the then Vice Chairman, DDA stated that he applied his mind on the material on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

C.S. Krishnamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2005

"The sanction itself shows that there is something to be accounted by the accused. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 140 - A K Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next