Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
Kizito E.L. Ibe vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 31 August, 1989 cites

Karnesh Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 April, 1968

(10) The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that when an important witness is not examined in case, the court becomes entitled to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case. He cited Air 1986 S.C. 1402, (Karnesh Kumar Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh), where the proposition about the duty of the prosecution to examine material witnesses was highlighted, adding that if such witnesses are deliberately kept back then the court should draw an adverse inference and in a proper case record such failure as constituting a serious infirmity in the proof of the prosecution case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 41 - J M Shelat - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Daulat Ram on 23 January, 1980

He cited then another judgment , (The State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram), to the effect that where all link witnesses were not examined so as to satisfy the court that the samples in the case under the Opium Act had not changed hands' or had not been tempered with, then it became a case where a lacuna was left in the prosecution case which cannot be subsequently tilled up He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chaman Lal v. The State, , that where the prosecution case is surrounded by circumstances which appear to the Court absolutely suspicious, then the conviction of a person cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 215 - S M Ali - Full Document

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 30 January, 1981

He cited then another judgment , (The State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram), to the effect that where all link witnesses were not examined so as to satisfy the court that the samples in the case under the Opium Act had not changed hands' or had not been tempered with, then it became a case where a lacuna was left in the prosecution case which cannot be subsequently tilled up He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chaman Lal v. The State, , that where the prosecution case is surrounded by circumstances which appear to the Court absolutely suspicious, then the conviction of a person cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 52 - S M Ali - Full Document
1