Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.34 seconds)Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors on 20 October, 2016
14. Non-examination of independent witness as well as
examination of the family members will not cast dent in the
prosecution case and that has been taken into consideration in Yogesh
Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in 2017 CRI.L.J.
291, it has been held:-
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
Testimony of Interested/Inimical Witnesses
"24. On the issue of appreciation of
evidence of interested witnesses, Dalip
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC
364: 1954 SCR 145, is one of the earliest
cases on the point. In that case, it was held
as follows:
Piara Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 1977
25. Similarly, in Piara Singh and Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977)
4 SCC 452, this Court held:
Hari Obula Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 1980
In Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. The
State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675,
a three-judge Bench of this Court observed:
Anil Rai vs State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2001
28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements
of this Court on this point leads to the
inescapable conclusion that the evidence of
a closely related witnesses is required to be
carefully scrutinised and appreciated before
any conclusion is made to rest upon it,
regarding the convict/accused in a given
case. Thus, the evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the
deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2015 19
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be
relied upon. (See Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar,
(2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo
Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh
& Anr. Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC
206; Dahari & Ors. Vs. State of U. P.,
(2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @ Balachandran
& Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12
SCC 701; Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati
Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298;
State Of U.P vs Jagdeo And Others on 10 December, 2002
28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements
of this Court on this point leads to the
inescapable conclusion that the evidence of
a closely related witnesses is required to be
carefully scrutinised and appreciated before
any conclusion is made to rest upon it,
regarding the convict/accused in a given
case. Thus, the evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the
deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2015 19
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be
relied upon. (See Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar,
(2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo
Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh
& Anr. Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC
206; Dahari & Ors. Vs. State of U. P.,
(2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @ Balachandran
& Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12
SCC 701; Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati
Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298;