Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.70 seconds)G. Sahadevan Nair vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 2008
13.3 In the context of evidence of PW-3, the submission was
also canvassed that the law regarding extra-judicial confession is
very much settled to the effect that it is a weak type of evidence and
the conviction cannot be fastened alone on the basis of such
evidence. We are unable to agree with said submission in view of
the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan
and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6
Supreme Court Cases 403 in paragraph no.14 to the effect:
Munigadappa Meenaiah vs State Of A.P on 23 July, 2008
17. Lastly, with regard to submission canvassed of PW-5
being interested witness, his evidence is liable to be discarded due
to there being no support to his evidence from the evidence of
independent witness, the bare reference to the decision in the case
of Munigadappa Meenaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
reported in (2008) 11 SCC page 661 reveals that while considering
the law regarding partisan witness, the apex Court pointed out the
following observations made in the earlier decision in a case of
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 364
'26. A witness is normally to be considered
independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually means
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:44:42 :::
27 appeal 1324.07.odt
unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against
the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
17. Lastly, with regard to submission canvassed of PW-5
being interested witness, his evidence is liable to be discarded due
to there being no support to his evidence from the evidence of
independent witness, the bare reference to the decision in the case
of Munigadappa Meenaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
reported in (2008) 11 SCC page 661 reveals that while considering
the law regarding partisan witness, the apex Court pointed out the
following observations made in the earlier decision in a case of
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 364
'26. A witness is normally to be considered
independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually means
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:44:42 :::
27 appeal 1324.07.odt
unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against
the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.
Mohan, Yashin, Duli Chand, Balbir Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 1997
18. The apex Court thereafter observed that the said decision
was followed in cases of Guli Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of
Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614. The apex Court then
observed :
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
18. The apex Court thereafter observed that the said decision
was followed in cases of Guli Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of
Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614. The apex Court then
observed :
Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951
'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. This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of this
Court endeavoured to dispel in - Rameshwar V.
State of Rajasthan2, (AIR at p.59). We find,
however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in
the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the
arguments of counsel'.
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
In the same context, the Apex Court also pointed out the
following observations made in the case of Masalti v. State of
U.P., reported in AIR 1965 SC 202,
'14. ..... But it would, we think, be unreasonable to
contend that evidence given by witnesses should be
discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of
partisan or interested witnesses. ..... The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is
2 AIR 1952 SC 54
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:44:42 :::
29 appeal 1324.07.odt
partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No
hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much
evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has
to be cautious in dealing with such evidence, but the
plea that such evidence should be rejected because it
partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973
20. The apex Court further added that the same is the effect
in the decision in cases of State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh,
reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277 and Lehna Vs. State of Haryana,
reported in (2002) 3 SCC 76, wherein it was observed that :
State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Others on 1 February, 2000
'19. As observed by this Court in State of
Rajasthan V. Teja Ram3, the over insistence on
witnesses having no relation with the victims often
results in criminal justice going awry. When any
incident happens in a dwelling house or nearby, the
most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that
house".