Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kartik Malhar vs State Of Bihar on 15 November, 1995
In this connection, the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 614
could fruitfully be referred to and an excerpt from it would run thus:
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
"18. We may also observe that the ground that the witnesses being close
relatives and consequently, being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon,
has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip
Singh v. State of Punjab in which surprise was expressed over the impression
which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not
independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J., it was observed: (AIR
p.366, para 25)
"25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that
the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation
for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and
that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule.
If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we
are unable to concur.