Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.33 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 157 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999
It is not every discrepancy
which affects the creditworthiness and the
trustworthiness of a witness. There may at
times be exaggeration or embellishment not
affecting the credibility. The court has to sift
the chaff from the grain and find out the
truth. A statement may be partly rejected or
partly accepted [Leela Ram v. State of
Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525] . Want of
independent witnesses or unusual behaviour
of witnesses of a crime is not enough to
39 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008
reject evidence. A witness being a close
relative is not enough to reject his testimony
if it is otherwise credible. A relation may not
conceal the actual culprit. The evidence may
be closely scrutinised to assess whether an
innocent person is falsely implicated.
Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a
"partisan" or "interested" witness may lead to
failure of justice. It is well known that
principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"
Raju @ Balachandran & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 November, 2012
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Raju v. State of T.N.,
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 701, has held as under :
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981
"21. What is the difference between a
related witness and an interested witness?
This has been brought out in State of
Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752]. It
was held that: (SCC p. 754, para 7)
"7. ... True, it is, she is the wife of the
deceased; but she cannot be called an
'interested' witness. She is related to the
deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to
'interested'. A witness may be called
'interested' only when he or she derives
some benefit from the result of a litigation; in
the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an
accused person punished. A witness who is a
natural one and is the only possible
eyewitness in the circumstances of a case
cannot be said to be 'interested'."
The State Of Bihar vs Basawan Singh on 21 March, 1958
In light of the Constitution Bench
decision in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh
[AIR 1958 SC 500], the view that a "natural
witness" or "the only possible eyewitness"
Jalpat Rai & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 6 July, 2011
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Jalpat Rai v. State of
Haryana, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 208 has held as
under :
Sunil Kundu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2013
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kundu v. State
of Jharkhand, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 422,has held as
under: