Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Sri Kayithi Manohar Reddy vs The State Of A.P., Thru A.C.B., ... on 24 June, 2024 cites

State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao on 16 May, 2011

2) held that if the defence taken by the accused during trial appears to be probable, the same can be considered. The version of all the accused is consistent stating that the amount on the trap date was towards repayment of the loan amount which was supported by both PWs.1 and 2 and also DW1-independent witness. Further the Fair Price Shop dealership in the name of PW2 was cancelled on the allegation of misappropriation of rice. As seen from the evidence, there is no other witness apart from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding 11 the demand. In fact, the contents of Ex.P1 were disowned by PW1 during trial. There is absolutely no evidence in the case which establishes by admissible evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt the factum of demand by the accused. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao (supra
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 379 - Full Document

B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014

14. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 5; Lachman Dass v. State of Punjab 6 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with trap cases held that the defence of an accused has to be tested on the basis of probability and uncorroborated testimony of the complainant cannot form basis to convict the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 511 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1