Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.52 seconds)
Rajendra vs State Of U.P. on 19 May, 2025 cites

K.S.Panduranga vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2013

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 412 - D Misra - Full Document

Bani Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 July, 1996

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 350 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of U.P on 7 October, 2013

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 136 - V Sen - Full Document

Jayabalan vs U.T. Of Pondicherry on 6 November, 2009

In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry [(2010)1 SCC 199], this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 217 - M Sharma - Full Document

Shivalingappa Kallayanappa And Others vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 1994

In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694, the Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 244 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Darya Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1963

In Darya Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken the view that related witness does not necessarily mean or is equivalent to an interested witness. A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation; a decree in a civil case, or in seeing a person punished in a criminal trial, paragraph 6 whereof is quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 187 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next