Judgments - Evidence
ZULFIKHAR KHAN VERSUS HABIB KHAN @ ABDUL MUJEEB KHAN & ORS
GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS. VERSUS PATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI
RITESH SINHA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
SUNITA VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VERSUS NARENDRA DAMODARDAS MODI
YASHWANT SINHA & ORS. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR.
SH. NARENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Antar Singh Darbar Vs. Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya And 10 Ors.
State of Haryana Vs Ram Mehar & Others Etc. Etc.
The decisions of this court when analysed appositely clearly convey that the concept of the fair trial is not in the realm of abstraction. It is not a vague idea. It is a concrete phenomenon. It is not rigid and there cannot be any strait- jacket formula for applying the same. On occasions it has the necessary flexibility. Full Judgment
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA Vs. AJIT SETH AND ORS.
DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
The word alibi means “elsewhere”. The plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against the accused. In the present case said condition is fulfilled. Full Judgment
KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI
it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is Full Judgment
MANGU Vs. DHARMENDRA & ANR.
SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
Special Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory. The only point of relevance at present is whether the accused has been denied right of defence or not. In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Full Judgment
RAJ SINGH @ RAJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA TR.SEC.MINISTY OF HOME
RAM SUNDER SEN Vs. NARENDRA @ BODE SINGH PATEL & ANR.
It is a settled law that when prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the following tests to be clearly established: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent Full Judgment
KAMAL CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH @ GAJENDRA
Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done. Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be assessed carefully. Full Judgment