Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Vinod Kumar VS State of Punjab...
2015 6 Supreme 1 : A trap witness, being an interested witness, his evidence requires corroboration for acceptance. The evidence of a trap witness can form the basis of conviction if it is trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence, even if the witness is interested in the success of the trap. The prosecution can rely on the testimony of a hostile witness if it is corroborated, and the conviction can be based on such evidence. The mere fact that the trap leader is an interested witness does not render the evidence inadmissible, provided it is supported by independent corroboration and satisfies the ingredients of the offence.Checking relevance for M. O. Shamsudhin VS State Of Kerala...
1995 0 Supreme(SC) 391 : The evidence of a trap witness (such as a police officer involved in the trap) is not automatically unreliable or incapable of forming the basis of conviction merely because they are an interested witness. As held in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh (AIR 1958 SC 500), if the witness is not an accomplice but merely a partisan or interested witness concerned with the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested like other interested evidence and may be accepted without corroboration if the court finds it reliable. The court may in appropriate cases look for corroboration, but it is not mandatory. In Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1980) 2 SCC 390, the Court explicitly rejected the notion that the evidence of a police officer who laid the trap must be corroborated, stating there is no rule of law requiring such corroboration. The Court emphasized that the decision to accept or reject such evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the appreciation of evidence, not on a rigid rule. Therefore, the testimony of a trap leader who is an interested witness can form the basis of conviction if the court is satisfied of its reliability.Checking relevance for State of Maharashtra VS Ahmed Shaikh Babajan...
Checking relevance for Raju @ Balachandran VS State of Tamil Nadu...
2012 8 Supreme 309 : The Constitution Bench decision in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500 holds that a ''''trap witness'''' (who would be a natural eyewitness) can be considered an interested witness if he is ''''concerned in the success of the trap''''. The court ruled that such a witness''''s evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence, and in a proper case, the court may even look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused. Therefore, the testimony of a trap leader, who is interested in the success of the trap, cannot form the sole basis of conviction and must be scrutinized carefully, with possible need for corroboration.Checking relevance for State of A. P. VS S. Rayappa...
Checking relevance for Padmanabha S/o Melagiriyappa Bommanahalli VS State of Karnataka...
2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 73 : The court explicitly rejects the argument that a trap witness (referred to as a ''''shadow witness'''' or ''''decoy witness'''') cannot form the basis of conviction merely because he is an interested witness concerned with the success of the trap. The Hon''''ble Apex Court in D. Velayutham vs. State of Chennai, (2015) 12 SCC 348, held that it would be a derogation and perversion of the purpose of anti-corruption law to invariably presume that a trap witness has an ulterior motive. The burden is on the defence to discredit the credibility of the trap witness, not on the court to suspect the testimony from the outset. The court emphasized that the testimony of such witnesses must be tested using diverse considerations appropriate to each case, and independent corroboration may be required in a proper case, but the mere fact that the witness is interested in the trap''''s success does not render his testimony inadmissible or insufficient as a basis for conviction.Checking relevance for Kaptan Singh VS State of Madhya Pradesh...
2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1374 : The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh held that if a witness is a ''''partisan or interested witness, who is concerned in the success of the trap,'''' their evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is tested by the application of diverse considerations which must vary from case to case, and in a proper case, the court may even look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. This establishes that a trap leader, being interested in the success of the trap, is an interested witness whose testimony cannot form the basis of conviction without careful scrutiny and, in some cases, corroboration.
