Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 556 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P vs Krishna Gopal & Anr on 12 August, 1988

In Re: State vs Gopal Krishan on 7 July, 2012

33. Secondly, for reasons best known to the IO, IO did not join injured Hile Raja in the investigation and did not add his name in the list of witnesses to be examined in support of the case. May be as he was the occupant of the offending car and known to the accused, the IO was of the opinion that he would not have supported the prosecution case but said fact/opinion find no mention in the charge sheet. Failure on part of prosecution to examine Hile Raja created further doubt upon the FIR No. 500/98 State Vs. Gopal Krishan 16/19 prosecution story.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Krishan Gopal Etc. on 31 July, 2013

15. Though PW3 deposed that accused Krishan Gopal had given 3-4 blows of iron angle on his head but his testimony to this effect does not get strength from the MLC Ex. PW12/A. If accused Krishan Gopal had given 3-4 blows of iron angle on his head, it means he would have SC No. 4/12 Page 7 of 16 State Vs. Krishan Gopal etc. sustained atleast 3-4 injuries on his head but it is not so. As per MLC, he had sustained only one CLW on the left side of his head in parietal region. Besides that he had also sustained abrasion on his right side. Since, the testimony of PW3 is not supported by the MLC to the extent that 3-4 blows of iron angle were given on his head, his testimony to that extent does not inspire any confidence. However, MLC Ex. PW12/A corroborated the testimony of PW3 to the extent that he had sustained injury on his head, thus his testimony that accused Krishan Gopal had inflicted injury on his head appears to be trustworthy.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Gopal Krishan on 15 January, 2024

17. Further, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that accused person had snatched purse of the complainant.There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the purse was recovered from the possession of the FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.8/9 accused person. Even for Section 411 IPC to apply, the prosecution has to establish that the recovered property is a stolen property. The complainant is a star witness and he has failed to identify the accused person and has also denied the presence of case property in possession of accused. Despite presence of public witnesses, the investigating officer has not bothered to join them in the investigation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused person.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Ram vs State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 5 October, 2020

35. This Court has held in a large number of cases that merely because the panch witnesses have turned hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same is based on the testimony of the investigating officer alone. In the instant case, it is not the case of defence that the testimony of the investigating officer suffers from any infirmity or doubt. (Vide Modan Singh case, Krishna Gopal case and Anter Singh case.)"
Jharkhand High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Mahindra vs Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb . on 19 April, 2017

16. Furthermore, looking at the facts and circumstances of this case, we have noticed that PW-3 the eye-witness to the incident has neither stated as to when the accused came with alleged weapons nor he extended any help to the deceased. Rather he fled away from the spot as per his deposition, and came to know about the death of the deceased in the evening. This peculiar fact of the case completely over-rides the direct evidence rule, because ultimately probabilities creating doubts with respect to the cause and modus-operandi of offence increases when alleged eye-witness flee away from the place of occurrence. Where the medical evidence is such that it does not give any clear opinion with respect to the injuries inflicted on the body of victim or deceased, as the case may be, the possibilities that the injuries might have been caused by the accused are also ruled out. Such medical evidence is also very important in assessing the testimony of eye-witnesses and in determining whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be safely accepted. Moreover, it is settled law of criminal jurisprudence as has been recognized by this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal, (supra) that “A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” After meticulously scrutinizing the facts and circumstances of the present case, and keeping in mind the proposition of law as observed in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that there are not only actual but substantial doubts as to the guilt of the respondents herein. We are, therefore, unable to find any evidence as to how the deceased was killed and by whom. The unfortunate man succumbed to injuries but the substantial doubts, mentioned above, confer a right upon the accused-respondents to be held not guilty.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Mahindra vs Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb & Ors on 19 April, 2017

Furthermore, looking at the facts and circumstances of this case, we have noticed that PW-3 the eye-witness to the incident has neither stated as to when the accused came with alleged weapons nor he extended any help to the deceased. Rather he fled away from the spot as per his deposition, and came to know about the death of the deceased in the evening. This peculiar fact of the case completely over-rides the direct evidence rule, because ultimately probabilities creating doubts with respect to the cause and modus-operandi of offence increases when alleged eye-witness flee away from the place of occurrence. Where the medical evidence is such that it does not give any clear opinion with respect to the injuries inflicted on the body of victim or deceased, as the case may be, the possibilities that the injuries might have been caused by the accused are also ruled out. Such medical evidence is also very important in assessing the testimony of eye- witnesses and in determining whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be safely accepted. Moreover, it is settled law of criminal jurisprudence as has been recognized by this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal, (supra) that “A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” After meticulously scrutinizing the facts and circumstances of the present case, and keeping in mind the proposition of law as observed in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that there are not only actual but substantial doubts as to the guilt of the respondents herein. We are, therefore, unable to find any evidence as to how the deceased was killed and by whom. The unfortunate man succumbed to injuries but the substantial doubts, mentioned above, confer a right upon the accused-respondents to be held not guilty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - P C Ghosh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next