Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.33 seconds)

Balraje @ Trimbak vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 May, 2010

(ii) The testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless exceptional circumstances exist their statements are not to be discarded lightly [See : State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355)] and in the instant case the Magistrate while recording the statement of injured-opposite party No.2 has mentioned the date of incident as 01.01.2019, which could be inadvertently.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 291 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Naresh And Ors on 8 March, 2011

(ii) The testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless exceptional circumstances exist their statements are not to be discarded lightly [See : State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355)] and in the instant case the Magistrate while recording the statement of injured-opposite party No.2 has mentioned the date of incident as 01.01.2019, which could be inadvertently.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 797 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Balu Sudam Khalde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2023

(ii) The testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless exceptional circumstances exist their statements are not to be discarded lightly [See : State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355)] and in the instant case the Magistrate while recording the statement of injured-opposite party No.2 has mentioned the date of incident as 01.01.2019, which could be inadvertently.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 27 - S Dhulia - Full Document

Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P on 14 September, 2010

(ii) The testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless exceptional circumstances exist their statements are not to be discarded lightly [See : State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355)] and in the instant case the Magistrate while recording the statement of injured-opposite party No.2 has mentioned the date of incident as 01.01.2019, which could be inadvertently.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 882 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next