Supreme Court of India
State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
6 Supreme Court benches have cited this judgment.
From the headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s. 7(1) - Conviction under, of head constable for demand of illegal gratification - However, acquittal by High Court - Justification of - Held: Justified - Prosecution failed to prove its case - Sole surviving panch witness was not witness of demand and was disbelieved; and was also declared hostile - High Court considered the legal implication of s. '20 and did not place too much reliance on the minor inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Criminal law - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - Held: When two views are possible,
Where later benches applied it
- 2013 K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka
- 2012 Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat
- 2022 Neeraj Dutta v. State (govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- 2017 Vasant Rao Guhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- 2015 Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab
- 2012 Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Of those, 2 relied on · 4 referred to
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.