send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In which of the following cases did the Apex Court held that the practice of getting the affidavits of defence witnesses in advance amounted to an attempt aimed at dissuading the witnesses from speaking the truth before the Court? This type of interference in criminal justice should not be encouraged and was to be viewed seriously. The Court deprecated this practice.
Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 5039.
Rachapalli Abbulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 1805 (para 11): (2002) 4 SCC 208.
State of Raj as than v. Teja Ram, AIR 1999 SC 1776.
State of Haryana v. Mange Ram, 2003 1 SCC 637, para 12: AIR 2003 SC 558 : 2003 CrLJ 830.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses