Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Vimlendra Singh alias Prince Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - 1. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989– As per unamended provision, the prosecution was required to establish that the prosecutrix who was subjected to any offence under the IPC was subjected on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community. In view of evidence on record, the prosecution could not establish that offence allegedly committed was on the ground that prosecutrix belonged to reserved community. Hence, Full Judgment
Ajay Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - 1. Evidence Act- ‘Related’ and “Interested” Witness” - ‘related’ is not equivalent into ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he derives some benefits from the result of the litigation or in seeing the accused person punished. Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration. The Court is obliged to examine such evidence with great care, caution and circumspection. 2. ‘Related’ and ‘interested’ witness – The Full Judgment
FAINUL KHAN VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Versus RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR.
Kantilal Versus The State of Gujarat
M. RAMALINGAM VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE SBE/CBI/ACB, MADRAS
SATISH KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA
Ravi S/o Ashok Ghumare VERSUS The State of Maharashtra
Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh
Ishwari Lal Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Ms. Apoorva Pathak Vs. The Hon’ble High Court of M.P. and another
Law laid down - (1) Where an applicant is guilty of suppression or misrepresentation of facts or obtains appointment by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such selection or appointment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (2) The suppression or misrepresentation of information in the attestation form by a candidate seeking appointment, per se amounts to moral turpitude. (3) Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such Full Judgment