Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Manga @ Man Singh vs State Of Uttarkakhand on 3 May, 2013
10. The Second issue for consideration is the
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:20:57 :::
( 14 ) crap22.00
testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 in absence of any
corroboration from any independent witness. PW-4
and PW-5 are related witnesses as they are the
brothers of the deceased Hasen Ali. There is no bar
on the admissibility of a statement by related
witnesses supporting the prosecution case, but it
should stand the test of being credible, reliable,
trustworthy, admissible in accordance with law and
corroborated by other witnesses or documentary
evidence of the prosecution. This Court has held in
Manga alias Man Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2013) 7 SCC 629, that it is the quality of the
witness that matters and not the quantity, when the
related witness was examined and found credible. In
such a case non-examination of an independent
witness would not be fatal to the prosecution case.
Shyamal Saha & Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 24 February, 2014
11. In the present case, however, the prosecution
witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, contradict each other, and
their statements are not corroborated by any
independent witness in spite of the incident
happening in the market place, with shops on both
sides of the road. Therefore, in our view, as the
testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 are not completely
reliable, this is a fit case where corroboration by
an independent witness was required. The case of
the prosecution also weakens on the ground that the
only independent witness PW-8 turned hostile. A
similar situation arose in Shyamal Saha and Anr. v.
State of West Bengal, (2014) 12 SCC 321, where the
only independent witness turned hostile. This Court
decided to affirm the acquittal and granted benefit
of doubt to the accused considering the factual
background and circumstances involved in the case.
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2014
11. Since this is an appeal against acquittal, it is
necessary to refer the ratio laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Murlidhar alias Gidda and another Vs State
of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 730, wherein in para No.12 the
Apex Court has held thus: