Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)Jagdish Prasad Shastri vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 October, 1970
The above decision has since been followed in Ramratan and Others v. The
State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. (1962) S.C. 424; Guli Chand and Others v. State
of Rajasthan, A.I.R. (1974) S.C, 276; Badri v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R.
(1976) S.C. 560; Vanula Bhushan @ Venuna Knshnan v. State of Tamil Nadu,
A.I.R. (1989) S.C. 236 and in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P., A.I.R,
(1994) S.C. 1251.
State Of Haryana vs Manoj Kumar on 2 November, 1993
Some other cases of this Court in which the question of sole witness
constiluting the basis of conviction or otherwise has been considered are
State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar, [1994] 1 SCC 495; Brij Basi Lal v. State
of M.P., [1991] Suppl.
Brij Basi Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 14 April, 1981
Some other cases of this Court in which the question of sole witness
constiluting the basis of conviction or otherwise has been considered are
State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar, [1994] 1 SCC 495; Brij Basi Lal v. State
of M.P., [1991] Suppl.
Jai Prakash vs State (Delhi Administration) on 5 February, 1991
1 SCC 200; Jai Prakash v. State, Delhi
Administration, [1991] 2 SCC 379; Peodireddi Subbareddi v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR (1991) SC 1356; Java Ram Shiva Tagore v. State of Maharashtra,
[1991] Suppl.
Peddireddy Subbareddi And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 February, 1990
1 SCC 200; Jai Prakash v. State, Delhi
Administration, [1991] 2 SCC 379; Peodireddi Subbareddi v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR (1991) SC 1356; Java Ram Shiva Tagore v. State of Maharashtra,
[1991] Suppl.
Dalbir Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 20 August, 1976
As to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the witness was
the widow of the deceased and was, therefore, highly interested and her
statement be discarded, we may observe that a close relative who is a
natural witness regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested"
postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the
accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other
reason. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR (1977) SC
472, it has been observed as under :
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative
and consequently, being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has
no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dilip
Singh's case (supra) in which this Court expressed its surprise 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.,
the Court observed :
Guli Chand And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 November, 1973
This decision has since been followed in Guli Chand and Others v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR (1974) SC 276 in which Vadevelu Thevar's case (supra) was
also relied upon.
Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951
"We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the
testimony of the two eye-witnesses 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 rules. 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. The State of Rajasthan, [1952] SCR
377 = AIR 1952 SC 54. We find, however, that it unfortunately still
persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the
arguments of counsel."