Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.29 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 174 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Pedda Narayana & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 April, 1975
The view taken in Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. (supra) was approved by a three-Judge Bench in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853 and it was held that the testimony of an eye-witness could not be discarded on the ground that their names did not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time.
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Genu Mohite vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 1972
In the case of Shivji Genu Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1973 SC 55], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye- witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy.
Badam Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2003
In the case of Badam Singh vs. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 792, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
State Of U.P vs Kishanpal & Ors on 8 August, 2008
In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: