Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Dhananjay Chatterjee Alias Dhana vs State Of W.B. on 11 January, 1994
Likewise law to this extent is also reiterated in the case of
Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal 1994 (2) SCC
320/[1994] 1 S.C.R. 37 and Bhajju v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC
Karnel Singh vs The State Of M.P on 11 August, 1995
CriAppeal-309-2002+
-21-
In Karnel Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995) SCC (5)
18, it has been held that :
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Ravi @ Nehru on 4 July, 2006
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Raju @ Nehru (2006) 10 SCC 534,
the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that :
B. C. Deva @ Dyava vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2007
CriAppeal-309-2002+
-23-
In B. C. Deva v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 122, it was
held that :
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
In State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, the
Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observations :
Radhu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2007
In Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 CRI.L.J. 4704, the
Apex Court has not only reiterated the well settled legal position that
a finding of guilt in a case of rape can be based on uncorroborated
evidence of prosecutrix, but has gone a step ahead and held that the
opinion of a doctor that, "There was no evidence of any sexual
intercourse or rape", may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation
of rape by the victim.
Mulla & Another vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 2010
29. Admittedly, test identification parade has mere corroborative
value and it is a process which belongs to investigating machinery.
Failure to conduct test identification parade is not always fatal. It may
not be necessary in every case. Law has developed to the extent of
holding that identification in court is good identification in the eyes of
law and it need not always be preceded by test identification parade.
Law to this extent has been dealt in various cases like Shamlal Ghosh
v. State of W.B. (2012) 7 SCC 646 ; Mulla v. State of U.P. (2010) 3
CriAppeal-309-2002+
-27-
SCC 508 and Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC
Sat Paul vs Delhi Administration on 30 September, 1975
In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) 1 SCC 727, the
Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned that "even if witness is treated as
"hostile" and is cross examined, his evidence cannot be written off
altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection
CriAppeal-309-2002+
-19-
and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be
considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge as a matter of prudence
to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the
purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness
has been declared hostile, does not result in automatic rejection of his
evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness", if it finds
corroboration from the facts of the case, may be taken into account
while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to
raise a conviction upon "hostile witness testimony" if corroborated by
other reliable evidence."
1