Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.58 seconds)
Sathyan vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2023 cites

State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000

23. Referring to State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil11, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab12 this court held that: – “23. … That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined when, on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds that the case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 853 - Full Document

Mohan Lal B.P vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited 22 ... on 6 August, 2018

xxx 13.2. (II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the 8 sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case-to-case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab [Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 215] and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.” (emphasis supplied)
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Pramod Kumar vs State(Gnct) Of Delhi on 1 July, 2013

22. Conviction being based solely on the evidence of police officials is no longer an issue on which the jury is out. In other words, the law is well settled that if the evidence of such a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground. This Court in Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)10
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 85 - D Misra - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988

13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48] , State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 10 (2013) 6 SCC 588 11 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595 : 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1102 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 3 Next