Judgments - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
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
Smt. Mala @ Gunmala Lodhi & Ors. vs. State of MP & Others
Law laid down - The first and foremost duty of a Medical Officer is to label the case as Medico Legal Case on the basis of his sound professional knowledge after taking detailed history as well thorough clinical examination. This duty is a pious duty and it should be based on profound principle of taking oath of his or her profession. Attending Casualty Medical Officer or Medical Officer, who is on duty only has authority to decide whether the case is to be registered Full Judgment
Anand Rao and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others
GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS. VERSUS PATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI
Ankur @ Nitesh Dixit Vs. State of M.P.
SUNITA VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM
SANJAY RAJAK VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR
SEEMA alias PRABHA VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Afzal Ahmand Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (1) Conviction under Section 395 of I.P.C. is permissible only when ingredients of Section 391 of I.P.C. are fulfilled. (2) Section 120-B of I.P.C.- Merely because certain stolen articles were recovered from the accused, they cannot be held to be dacoits by invoking presumption unless there is recent recovery from them. Possession of stolen property is an evidence of stolen property and in absence of any other evidence, it is not safe to draw an inference that the persons Full Judgment
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VERSUS NARENDRA DAMODARDAS MODI
YASHWANT SINHA & ORS. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR.
Baijnath (Dead) through LRs Vs. Firm M/s. Gwalior Land Deals and Finance, Lashkar
Sukhdeen s/o Mangi Adiwasi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Anshul Mandil Vs Smt. Sushila Kohli (dead) through LRs. and others
Boodhe @ Roop Singh Vs. The State of M.P.
Law laid down - The Evidence Act nowhere says that evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by any material particulars. The requirement of material for corroboration depends on the facts and circumstances of each case applying the rule of prudence. But if the prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on Full Judgment
Anil Vanshkar Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Law laid down - (I) Considering the amendment vide Section 439(1-A) of Cr.P.C. on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it appears that personal liberty of an individual cannot lie at the mercy of presence of an “Informant”. (II) Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law and by the amendment incorporated under Section 439(1-A) of Cr.P.C. impliedly penalises the applicant/ accused while withholding his bail application for an indefinite period which is not permissible in law. (III) Full Judgment