Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ambika Prasad Rajwade And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 6 September, 2005
(Ambika Prasad and others Vs. State,
(2002) 2 CRIMES 63 SC) and (AIR 1988 SC 696).
Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors on 31 January, 2003
28 There is no requirement of law that everyone who has wit-
nessed the occurrence, whatever there number be, must be exam-
ined as a witness. (Amar Singh V. Balwinder Singh (SC) 2003 (1)
RCR Criminal 701).
Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 5 May, 2009
In Jawahar v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 336 it was further observed that (1) It is very hard these
days to get association of public witnesses in criminal investigation
and (2) Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any incon-
venience for the sake of society.
A.Abdul Rasheed vs The State Of Kerala
31 I had gone through the seized material which was proved
as Ex. P-1 collectively during the deposition of PW2 and PW3 and
have judged the same in light of law laid down by the Apex Court in
case titled as "Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharastra 1965 (SC)
881 as well as Abdul Rashid V. State of Kerala (Kerala) 2009 (1)
RCR Criminal 135.".
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sunil Kumar vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2003
27. It is well settled principle of law that it is the quality of evidence
that matters and not the quantity/number of witnesses. Section 134 of
the Indian Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of wit-
nesses to be examined for proving a particular fact ( Sunil Kumar V.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi SC 2004 (1) Criminal CC 524, Krish-
na Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC 81). Further
the court/judges cannot sit in an ivory tower of isolation and ignore
the fact that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to
wash off their hands/desist from joining/assisting the investigation.
The Court has also held that civilized people withdraw both from the
victim and the vigilante and they keep them selves away from the
Court unless it is inevitable.