Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.29 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984
In the matter of State of U.P. vs. M. K. Anthony, reported in
(1985) 1 SCC 505 it has been observe by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in
examining the truthfulness of the evidence, the Appellate Court will have
to attach due weightage to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial
Court. Unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be
proper for the Appellate Court to reject the evidence on the ground of
minor variations or infirmities in some details unrelated to the main
incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ
with individuals. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted
below: -
Jodhan vs State Of M.P on 8 May, 2014
(Emphasis supplied)
In the matter of Jodhan vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 AIR
(SCW) 3589,it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
testimony of injured witness has its own significance and it has to be
placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies. The
injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury
sustained by him is an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of
occurrence and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to
falsely implicate someone.
Mahbub Shah vs Emperor on 31 January, 1945
In Mahabub Shah vs. Emperor, reported in AIR (32) 1945 PC 118,
the Privy Council repeated and reiterated the same view.
Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia vs The State Of Hyderabad on 3 December, 1954
The above
proposition of law was adopted by a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble
Judges of the Supreme Court in Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia vs. State of
Hyderabad, reported in AIR 1955 SC 216. The above well settled
proposition of law was repeated and reiterated time and again by the
Apex Court.