Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2010
[See Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC614,
Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC
367, Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 and
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91]
Raja & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2016
22. Though PW 4 had remained unshaken with regard to his
testimony against the appellant however was found averse to the
prosecution's case with respect to others and on account thereof, was
declared hostile. However, such declaration would affect
prosecution's case as has been discussed by the Apex court in case
of Raja Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 506,
para 31 and 32.
State Of U.P vs Lakhmi on 12 February, 1998
In State of U.P. Vs. Lakhmi, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 336,
para 15 it has been held as follows:-
State Of Punjab vs Suraj Parkash Kapur, Etc on 4 May, 1961
18. We find that the defence has also argued that the evidence
of witnesses should not be taken into considerations as they are all
family members and thus interested witnesses. There is admittedly
enmity between the sides. It is well settled that the evidence of a
witness cannot be discarded merely because one happens to be a
relative and close associate of the deceased, if his evidence is
otherwise worthy of reliance. Reference can be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of
State of Punjab Vs. Suraj Prakash and others, reported in 2016
Cr.L.J. 1604.
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sudip Kr. Sen @ Biltu vs State Of W.B. & Ors on 7 January, 2016
In Sudip Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
2016 Cr.L.J. 1121, para 12 it has been observed:-