Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (3.57 seconds)
State Of H.P vs Of on 3 December, 2025 cites

Habeeb Mohammad vs The State Of Hyderabad on 5 October, 1953

46. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad, of AIR 1954 S.C 51 that though the prosecution is not bound to call all available witnesses irrespective of rt consideration of number or reliability witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is based must be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case of the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 196 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Stephen Seneviratne vs The King on 29 July, 1936

This court approved the decision of the Judicial Committee in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 289 laying down a similar proposition. In this case the first information report clearly states that Shitabi, C. W. 1, was an employee of the deceased and he was with his master at the time of the incident. He has also ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:29 :::CIS 49 2025:HHC:42172 ) given information about the incident to P. W. 1 and others. Whatever justification there may .
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 99 - Full Document
1   2 Next