Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1189 (4.08 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981

Rustam Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 31 October, 2022

As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 253 - Cited by 74 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Amir Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2020

As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt Kalki and Anr. [1981 (2) SCC 752], normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.130 of 2013 dt.29-05-2020 94/145 to which a discrepancy may be categorized.
Patna High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Ramkhiladi vs State Of M.P. on 15 March, 2022

As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to 39 Ram Khiladi Vs. State of M.P. ( Cr.A. No. 867 of 2010) normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 1 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Kalim Mian S/O Ibrahim Mian Resident Of ... vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026

Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N.5, in the following terms, by referring to the threeJudge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki2: (Ganapathi case5, SCC p. 555, para 14) "14. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested"."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Neelkanth vs State Of U.P. on 24 August, 2018

"To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277, Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76 .... As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vivek Kapil vs State Of M.P. on 21 April, 2022

This Court again in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Nathu Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 30 April, 2021

As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition 63 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 397 of 2005 Nathu Singh Vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No. 401 of 2005 Ghanshyam Singh Vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. 425 of 2005 Ramvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 153 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sc No. 57834/16 , Fir No. 369/11 Ps. ... vs . Vijay @ Vinay @ Bable & Ors Page No. 1 on 30 November, 2016

42.   It   is   a   settled   propositions   of   law   as   settled   in   case   titled   as   State   of   Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1390 ,  that normal discrepancies  occurring due to human errors of memory or due to shock and horror of the  occurrence do not corrode the credibility of a witness and it was observed that, 'In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies,   however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due   to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of   time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of   the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are   not normal, and not expected of a normal person.'
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next