PRAKASH CHAND versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

PRAKASH CHAND versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

The Supreme Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness may be accepted if the court is satisfied that the witness is truthful. Evidence of conduct of the accused when confronted by police is admissible under s.8 of the Evidence Act and is not excluded by s.162 Cr.P.C., as long as it does not amount to a statement recorded under s.162. The appellant's conviction was thus rightly sustained.

Parties
Appellant: Prakash Chand; Respondent: State (Delhi Administration)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 November 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prevention of Corruption Act, Indian Penal Code Section 161, Evidence Admissibility, Testimony of Trap Witness
Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Act Indian Penal Code Section 161 Evidence Admissibility Testimony of Trap Witness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prakash Chand

Appellant

State (Delhi Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness
  2. 2 Admissibility of evidence relating to conduct of accused confronted by police under Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness may be accepted if the court is satisfied that the witness is truthful. Evidence of conduct of the accused when confronted by police is admissible under s.8 of the Evidence Act and is not excluded by s.162 Cr.P.C., as long as it does not amount to a statement recorded under s.162. The appellant's conviction was thus rightly sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence affirmed
  • No interference under Article 136 of the Constitution