Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Sarwan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 11 August, 1976
As stated by this Court in Sarwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of
Punjab2
and Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab]3, it is not the law that the evidence of an interested
witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness
1 (1980) 4 SCC 425
2 (1976) 4 SCC 369
3 (2003) 7 SCC 643
6
or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a
matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness
does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts
require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the
evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little
care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied
that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of
truth such evidence could be relied upon even without
corroboration. This submission of the learned counsel is,
therefore, rejected.
Sucha Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2003
As stated by this Court in Sarwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of
Punjab2
and Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab]3, it is not the law that the evidence of an interested
witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness
1 (1980) 4 SCC 425
2 (1976) 4 SCC 369
3 (2003) 7 SCC 643
6
or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a
matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness
does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts
require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the
evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little
care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied
that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of
truth such evidence could be relied upon even without
corroboration. This submission of the learned counsel is,
therefore, rejected.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Marudanal Augusti vs State Of Kerala on 29 March, 1979
The police made inquiry with her. She gave her statement
which was reduced into writing at 10.00 A.M. Learned
counsel submitted that therefore, this statement was
recorded prior to the recording of Ex.P1 i.e. the FIR which
was recorded at 11.00 A.M. Learned counsel submitted
that the statement of PW-6 should have been treated as FIR
being the earliest statement recorded by the police. The
prosecution has suppressed this statement. FIR (Ex. P1) is,
therefore, a fabricated document. He submitted that the
prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case and,
therefore, adverse inference needs to be drawn against it. In
5
support of this submission he relied on the judgment of this
Court in Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala1.
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 449 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1