Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.44 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Girish Kumar Suneja vs Cbi on 13 July, 2017
In the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, a three
judges bench of Supreme Court made following observations: -
Central Bureau Of Investigation Etc vs V.K. Sehgal And Anr on 8 October, 1999
In CBI v. V.K. Sehgal [CBI v. V.K. Sehgal, (1999) 8 SCC 501:
Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2007
In Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625: 2007 SCC OnLine
SC 1056, it is held as follows;
Ajay Kumar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 17 March, 1994
21.2. Reliance placed by the accused in this regard upon the case of Ajay Kumar
Vs. State & Ors. (1985) ILR 2 Delhi 40, wherein it was observed that a
fair trial must be based on equally fair investigation; material collected by
the investigating agency disclosed to the accused; in an open Court in a
fearless; favourless environment; unbiased decision; with all procedural
safeguards as to right of cross examination of witnesses; right of Counsel
of choice of accused; etc., does not help the case of accused as there is
nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any such
unfairness against the accused, either at the stage of investigation or
during trial.
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980
22. Reliance placed by the accused upon another case of Shankarlal
Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 765, is also of
no help. That was a case of circumstantial evidence qua the allegations of
rape & murder of a five-year-old girl and based on the circumstances of
that case, benefit was given to the accused of that case. The said case has
absolutely no application to the facts of the present case.
Sri Lakshmikanta K vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2022
In the case of A. Kanagrajan Vs. State 2014 SCC Online Madras 11323,
quoting para no. 12 of the case of C. M. Sharma Vs. State of A. P. 2011
Judgment; CNR No. DLCT010016962019; CC No. 327/2019; State Vs. Sanjay Solanki; FIR No. 13/2016; P.S ACB; Dated 18-08-2022; Page 35 of 40
36
SAR (Criminal) 76, it was observed that corroboration of evidence of a
witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable and on
appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorised in three
categories viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In the case
of partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material
particulars from other evidence, whereas in the case of wholly reliable
witness, no corroboration is necessary.
Vinod Kumar Garg vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 August, 2017
In the case of Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC
88, it is observed by the Apex Court as follows;
Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988
In Appabhai and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241, Supreme
Court has emphasized that while appreciating the evidence, the court
should not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The
discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case
may be discarded. Similarly, the discrepancies which are due to normal
errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The
Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different
cases must evaluate the entire material on record as a whole and should
not disbelieve the evidence of a witness altogether, if it is otherwise
trustworthy.