Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. vs Lekhraj & Others on 6 September, 2010
In the matter titled as "State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and
Another" reported as JT 1999 (9) SC 43, it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India as under:
"In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal
discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be.
Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of
observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror
at the time of occurrence, and the like".
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
In the matter titled as "State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh" reported
at AIR 1988 SC 1998, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"xxxxxx
The case of prostitution is that few independent witnesses
were indeed requested to become witness but they did not
agree. It is not uncommon these days that people are
reluctant to become witness in criminal trial cases. In such
circumstances no benefit can be given to the accused for
non joining off independent public witnesses. It is a matter
of common knowledge that public persons are reluctant to
become witnesses of criminal trial. It has been held in a
number of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme court and High
Courts that merely because public witnesses are not joined
in a case, prosecution case cannot be thrown out.
Ambika Prasad And Another vs State (Delhi Administration, Delhi) on 21 January, 2000
In another matter titled as "Ambika Prasad & anr vs. State"
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1