Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.66 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Sat Pal vs Delhi Administration on 29 September, 1975
In Balram Prasad Agrawal (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has also placed reliance on earlier two decisions of the Apex Court (1) Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of MP, AIR 1991 SC 1853, and (2) Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294. It is not the proposition that the evidence of the hostile witness must be discarded as a whole.
Bhagwan Singh Rana vs The State Of Haryana on 30 April, 1976
In this decision also, the Apex Court has placed reliance on the decision in (1) Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 (2) Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, and (3) Sayed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848. So it is a proposition of law which settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely, because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined the witness. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record together, but same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. It appears from the plain perusal of the impugned judgment that while giving benefit of doubt to original accused No. 2 Kishore @ Uyo, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the above celebrated proposition of law.