Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.55 seconds)
Banwari Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 March, 2003 cites

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2000

In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000 Cri LJ 4640) (supra), has further held that for corroborative evidence, the Court must look at the broad spectrum of the approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to corroborate and lend assurance to that version. The nature and extent of such corroboration may depend upon facts of different cases. Corroboration need not be in the form of ocular testimony of witnesses and may even be in the form of circumstantial evidence. Corroborative evidence must be independent and not vague or unreliable. Once the evidence of the approver is held to be trustworthy, it must be shown that the story given by approver so far as an accused is concerned, must implicate him in such manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Insistence upon corroboration is based on the rule of caution and not merely a rule of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 209 - Full Document
1   2 Next