Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.48 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mahesh S/O Janardhan Gonnade vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 April, 2008
In Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra
[(2008) 13 SCC 271] this Court considered the
value of the deposition of a hostile witness and
held as under: (SCC p. 289, para 49)
'49. ... If PW.1 the maker of the complaint
has chosen not to corroborate his earlier
statement made in the complaint and recorded
during investigation, the conduct of such a
witness for no plausible and tenable reasons
pointed out on record, will give rise to doubt the
testimony of the investigating officer who had
sincerely and honestly conducted the entire
investigation of the case. In these circumstances,
we are of the view that PW.1 has tried to conceal
the material truth from the Court with the sole
purpose of shielding and protecting the appellant
for reasons best known to the witness and
therefore, no benefit could be given to the
29
appellant for unfavourable conduct of this
witness to the prosecution.'
Rajendra & Anr vs State Of U.P on 8 April, 2009
In Rajendra v. State of U.P. [(2009)
13 SCC 480], this Court observed that merely
because a witness deviates from his statement
made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to
be totally unreliable.
Govindappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 11 May, 2010
This Court reiterated a
similar view in Govindappa v. State of Karnataka
[(2010) 6 SCC 533] observing that the deposition
of a hostile witness can be relied upon at least up
to the extent he supported the case of the
prosecution.