Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
In Re: Balan Alias Balusami Mudali And ... vs Unknown on 7 November, 1972 cites

Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957

11. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that it was voluntarv._ still, according to the decisions of the highest Court, corroboration would be necessary, since; it has been retracted. It is'sufficient to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras 1958 SCR 428 : 1958 Cri LJ 238 (SC) where their Lordships point out But the view taken by this Court on more occasions than one is that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated one of the latest cases being Balbir Singh v. State of Puniab .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - P G Menon - Full Document

State Of Delhi vs Shri Ram Lohia on 9 December, 1959

5, 6 and 7 had eiven statements under Section 164 Cr.PC supporting the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon those statements under Section 164, Cr.PC as corroborating the retracted confession- In this, he is clearly wrong, because, statements under Section 164 Cr.PC are not substantive evidence and thev could only be used to corroborate the witness if thev themselves gave direct evidence in the trial Court. Even if they had eiven direct evidence in the committal Court, that would have ben marked as substantive evidence under Section 288 Cr. P. C- In the absence of substantive evidence of the witnesses, whether directly given in the Court of Session or eiven in the committal Court and marked under Section 288 Cr.PC the mere statements of those witnesses under Section 164 Cr- P. C. cannot be substantive evidence and cannot be used in any Lmanner to corroborate the retracted con fession, Ex, P. 8- The position is well-settled. It is enough to refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Delhi v. Shri Ram Lohia where their Lordships sav that statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC are not substantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use of except to corroborate or contradict the witness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 55 - Full Document
1