Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Delhi Police Act, 1978
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Tahir vs State (Delhi) on 21 March, 1996
Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in case titled Tahir v. State AIR 1996 SC 3079 has held :
"In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police
officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is
no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be
recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable,
unless corroborated by some independent, evidence. The Rule of
Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their
evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the
case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials,
after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the
absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend
corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the credit
worthiness of the prosecution case."
Section 172 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1