Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.38 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Of West Bengal vs Kailash Chandra Pandey on 13 October, 2004
In State
CBI Vs. Raj Kumar Verma CC No. 36/11 Page 40 of 7
of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chanra Pandey, AIR 2005 SC 119, it was inter
alia held that cosmetic contradiction in statements of witnesses cannot
improbablise the prosecution story. The basic Law is that the contradictions
which damage the roots of the case, can be taken into account. The minor
contradictions are bound to occur and the same are liable to be rejected.
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Prakash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration) on 20 November, 1978
Similarly, in Prakash Chand Vs. State, AIR 1979 SC 400,
the Supreme Court held that the conduct of the accused when confronted or
questioned by a police officer during the course of investigation is admissible
u/S 8 of the Evidence Act. However, at the same time, if the substantive
prosecution evidence is totally unreliable or unworthy of credit, the conduct
of the accused can never be permitted to become a substitute for proof by the
prosecution. In the present case, in addition to consistent and corroborative
statement of witnesses, the conduct of the accused is also noteworthy. The
accused turned pale and did not utter anything on being challenged by the
TLO, Inspt. RC Sharma.