Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Shyamal Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 11 July, 2012
In the matter of Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, reported
in (2012) 7 SCC 646, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
court should examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and read
the said statements along with the statements of other witnesses in order
to arrive at a rational conclusion instead of reading statement of a
witness in part or in isolation. The relevant portion of the above decision
is quoted below:-
State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984
In the matter of State of U.P. vs. M. K. Anthony, reported in (1985)
1 SCC 505 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in
examining the truthfulness of the evidence, the Appellate Court will have
to attach due weightage to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial
Court. Unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be
proper for the Appellate Court to reject the evidence on the ground of
minor variations or infirmities in some details unrelated to the main
incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ
with individuals. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted
below: -
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Jodhan vs State Of M.P on 8 May, 2014
In the matter of Jodhan vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 AIR
(SCW) 3589, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
testimony of injured witness has its own significance and it has to be
placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies. The
injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury
sustained by him is an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of
occurrence and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to
falsely implicate someone.
1