Judgments - Murder
Madhu Kumari @ Madhu Devi and Anr Versus State Of Bihar and Anr
Mahipal Versus Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.
State of NCT of Delhi Versus Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors.
BHAWNA BAI VERSUS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS
Janak Lal Mahto Versus State Of Bihar and Anr
Jodhraj & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan
JAI PRAKASH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
V. RAJARAM VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB
Rekha Murarka Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS KILLU @ KAILASH AND ORS.
State of M.P. V/s. Waris
State Of Chhattisgarh Versus Shankar Haldhar
The third Judge to whom Criminal Appeal is referred upon difference of opinion amongst two Judges of the Division Bench is entitled to hear and decide the matter afresh. The third Judge is not bound to follow one or the other judgment rendered by the Judges of the Division Bench. Full Judgment
Awadhesh Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Anr.
JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Rohtas & Anr. Versus The State of Haryana
Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju Versus State (NCT of Delhi)
PREM SINGH Versus SUKHDEV SINGH & OTHERS
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