Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.26 seconds)Section 435 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu on 11 July, 2016
In State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu reported in (2016) 14 SCC 152, the Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. 15, 17, 19 & 20 as under :
Bhagloo Lodh & Anr vs State Of U.P on 14 June, 2011
44. At this juncture, it would be apt to mention that evidence of a close relation can be relied upon, provided it is trustworthy, credible and is cogent. Regarding the reliability of oral testimony of the closely related eye-witnesses, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhagaloo Lodh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 (13) SCC 206 held as under: -
Gangabhavani vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors on 4 September, 2013
45. The Apex Court further in case of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Ors, 2013 (15) SCC 298, while considering the evidentiary value of interested witnesses held as under:-
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981
In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, this Court held: (SCC p. 754, para 7)
"7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased"......For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents.
Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 October, 2004
In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., while dealing with the case this Court held: (SCC pp.414-15, para 7)
"7. .....Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence."