Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.58 seconds)
Kunjiraman vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2012 cites

Hari Shanker Etc vs State Of U.P. Etc on 6 May, 1996

It is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted, that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (See Hari Shanker v. State of U.P.(1996) 9 SCC 40); Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616); Abu Thakir v. State of T.N.(2010) 5 SCC 91); State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73] and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.(2010) Crl.A.No.1258/2012 10 12 SCC 91))
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 22 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Bikau Pandey And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 25 November, 2003

It is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted, that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (See Hari Shanker v. State of U.P.(1996) 9 SCC 40); Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616); Abu Thakir v. State of T.N.(2010) 5 SCC 91); State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73] and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.(2010) Crl.A.No.1258/2012 10 12 SCC 91))
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 77 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Kishanpal & Ors on 8 August, 2008

It is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted, that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (See Hari Shanker v. State of U.P.(1996) 9 SCC 40); Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616); Abu Thakir v. State of T.N.(2010) 5 SCC 91); State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73] and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.(2010) Crl.A.No.1258/2012 10 12 SCC 91))
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 240 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2010

It is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted, that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (See Hari Shanker v. State of U.P.(1996) 9 SCC 40); Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616); Abu Thakir v. State of T.N.(2010) 5 SCC 91); State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73] and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.(2010) Crl.A.No.1258/2012 10 12 SCC 91))
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 244 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1