Section 7. Proceedings and evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregularity
No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth.
Judgements applying section 7
Deaf and dumb witness testimony; Section 119 Indian Evidence Act, 1872; interpreter and special educator; oath administration; Oaths Act 1969 ss.4, 5, 7; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; Section 313 Cr.P.C. enquiry; attempt to commit rape; Section 511 IPC with Section 376(2)(j)(l) IPC; Section 323 IPC;
DisposedOpenRape — Section 376(2)(l) IPC — intellectually disabled victim (75% moderate intellectual disability) — competency of witness — Section 118 Indian Evidence Act — voir dire / preliminary examination — Section 164(5A) CrPC — videography of statement of disabled victim — interpreter and special educator — statement in…
AllowedOpenConviction under Section 304(II) IPC for killing a man with a stone during a quarrel was upheld on appeal; the son's revision seeking enhancement to Section 302 was dismissed. The High Court held motive need not be proved with direct evidence and affirmed the admissibility of a 16-year-old witness's testimony.
DismissedOpenA man convicted under Section 304(II) IPC for killing an old man with a stone during a quarrel appealed his conviction; the deceased's son sought revision for remand.
DismissedOpenCOURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.17363/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVA PRAKASH GIRISH SON OF SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEA
DismissedOpenGAHC010027102020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/2/2020 UMESH BARAIK UDALGURI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 381 of 2015 Sonadai, W/o Sita Ram, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village - Aadawala, Kusumpal, Thana Bodhghat, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ----Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station
DismissedOpenCOURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No. 11 of 2018 Roshan Singh Negi ......... Appellant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …....Respondent Present: Mr. Rajendra Arya, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State. JUDGMENT
DismissedOpenHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal (DB) No.698 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.629 of 2013 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2013 and the order of sentence dated 08.07.2013
Partly allowedOpenHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal (DB) No.698 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.629 of 2013 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2013 and the order of sentence dated 08.07.2013
Partly allowedOpen