Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.29 seconds)Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Jagir Singh vs The State (Delhi) on 4 December, 1974
52. It was in the context of such a case, where, as a result of the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, the prosecution witness concerned stood discredited altogether, that this Court in Jagir Singh v. State , with the aforesaid rule of caution which is not to be treated as a rule of law in mind, said that the evidence of such a witness is to be rejected en bloc.
Ram Prakash Arora vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 1972
23. It is true that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. But where the witnesses have poor moral fibre and have to their discredit a heavy load of bad antecedents, such' as those of PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8, having a possible motive to harm the accused who was an obstacle in the way of their immoral activities, it would be hazardous to accept their testimony, in the absence of corroboration on crucial points from independent sources. If any authority is needed reference may be made to R. P. Arora v. State of Punjab wherein this Court ruled that in a proper case, the Court should look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person on the evidence of trap witnesses.
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Satyendra Kumar Dutt Chowdhury Alias ... on 13 October, 1922
Some of these decisions in which this view was taken are: Luchiram Motilal v. Radha Charan ; Emperor v. Satyendra Kumar Dutt, AIR 1923 Cal 463; Surendra Ranee Dassi ; Khijiruddin v. Emperor AIR 1926 Cal 139 and Panchanan v. Emperor .
Emperor vs Jehangir Ardeshir Cama on 11 April, 1927
47. The Bombay, Emperor v. Jehangir Cama AIR 1927 Bom 501; , Ammathayarammal v. Official Assignee AIR 1933 Mad 137; Patna, Nebati v. Emperor AIR 1940 Pat 289; Patna Sahdeo v. Bipti ; Rajasthan ILR (1954) AIR 1955 Raj 65, Oudh Shyam Kumar v. Emperor AIR 1941 Oudh 130 Punjab AIR 1955 NUC (Punj) 5715; Madh Pra., ; Orissa, In re Kalu Singh; Rema Naik v. State ; Mysore AIR 1966 Mys 248; Kerala, 1951 ; Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1953 J & K 41 Courts have also taken the same view.
Ammathayarammal vs The Official Assignee on 3 March, 1932
47. The Bombay, Emperor v. Jehangir Cama AIR 1927 Bom 501; , Ammathayarammal v. Official Assignee AIR 1933 Mad 137; Patna, Nebati v. Emperor AIR 1940 Pat 289; Patna Sahdeo v. Bipti ; Rajasthan ILR (1954) AIR 1955 Raj 65, Oudh Shyam Kumar v. Emperor AIR 1941 Oudh 130 Punjab AIR 1955 NUC (Punj) 5715; Madh Pra., ; Orissa, In re Kalu Singh; Rema Naik v. State ; Mysore AIR 1966 Mys 248; Kerala, 1951 ; Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1953 J & K 41 Courts have also taken the same view.