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.
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.