Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.33 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2013
In Mohinder Singh v. State [1950 SCC
673, this Court observed in similar
circumstances as follows:
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981
"13. As regards the contention that all the
eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased,
it is by now well settled that a related witness
cannot be said to be an "interested" witness
merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.
This Court has elucidated the difference
between "interested" and "related" witnesses
in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness
may be called interested only when he or she
derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation, which in the context of a criminal
case would mean that the witness has a direct
or indirect interest in seeing the accused
punished due to prior enmity or other reasons,
and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the
accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v.
Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752; Amit v. State of U.P.
(2012) 4 SCC 107 and Gangabhavani v.
Ram Narain Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 15 July, 1975
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ram Narain Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported as (1975) 4
SCC 497, relying upon Mohinder Singh v. The State, reported
as AIR 1953 SC 415 had held as under:-