Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (4.27 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951
"We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the
testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation
for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women
and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such
rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the
deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal
cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in -
"Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan', AIR (1952) SC 54 at p. 59. We find,
however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of
the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1965) SC 202 this Court
observed : (p. 209-210 para 14):
State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973
To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR
(1973) SC 2407 and Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 76.