Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.49 seconds)Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
29. The distinction between "interested" and "related"
witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of
Punjab 1954 SCR 145: AIR 1953 SC 364: 1953 Cri LJ 1465,
where this Court emphasised that a close relative is
usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent
person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related
witness, the court should focus on the consistency and
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:42 :::CIS
29
2025:HHC:43467
credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that
the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties,
but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability
and consistency with other evidence in the case. This
.
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ganapathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2018
ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N. (2018) 5 SCC 549;
iii.
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
In Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133: AIR 1965 SC
202: (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226], a five-judge Bench of this Court
has categorically observed as under (AIR pp. 209-210,
para 14)
"14. ... There is no doubt that when a criminal court
has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who
of
are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in
weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are
discrepancies in the evidence, whether or not the
rt
evidence strikes the court as genuine, whether or not
the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all
matters that must be taken into account. But it
would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only
on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or
interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions
prevail in villages and murders are committed as a
result of enmity between such factions, criminal
courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type.
The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the
sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead
to the failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be
laid down as to how much evidence should be
appreciated. The judicial approach has to be cautious
in dealing with such evidence, but the plea that such
evidence should be rejected because it is partisan
cannot be accepted as correct."