Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 253 (5.52 seconds)
Documents citing Balaka Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 1975

Gauri Shanker Alias Bacchan Yadava And ... vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2020

47. Thus, considering the evidence available on record as discussed above, ocular evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence, evidence of prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence, keeping in view the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaka Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab, (supra) the injuries found on the body of the deceased demonstrate that the manner of the incident as alleged by the prosecution does not appear probable one which creates doubt regarding the witnesses to be the eye-witness of the incident.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - B A Sthalekar - Full Document

Shri Balram Jha vs State Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2023

71. It was then submitted that where witnesses speak in a parrot-like manner, such testimony should not be accepted and reliance was placed in this regard on the judgment in Balaka Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (supra) and Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad (supra). The law in this regard is well-established but it has to be examined whether the witnesses have spoken in a parrot-like manner by looking to their testimonies.
Delhi District Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Durgappa Kallappa on 22 December, 2020

AIR 1975 SC 1962] , this Court considered a similar issue, placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [AIR 1954 SC 15 : 1954 Cri LJ 230] and held as under: (Balaka Singh case [(1975) 4 SCC 511 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 601 : AIR 1975 SC 1962] , SCC p. 517, para 8) "8. ... the court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation, the court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle will not apply."
Karnataka High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durgappa S/O Kallappa vs State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2020

AIR 1975 SC 1962] , this Court considered a similar issue, placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [AIR 1954 SC 15 : 1954 Cri LJ 230] and held as under: (Balaka Singh case [(1975) 4 SCC 511 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 601 : AIR 1975 SC 1962] , SCC p. 517, para 8) "8. ... the court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation, the court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle will not apply."
Karnataka High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hoti Lal vs State Of Delhi on 5 January, 2023

15.6. Learned counsel for appellant has assailed the aforesaid findings of learned Trial Court on the ground that when testimony of complainant was disbelieved and ignored qua all other accused persons, Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 162/2011 Page 12 of 15 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.01.2023 18:47:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000031 the same course should have been adopted qua the present appellant also. Reliance in this regard was also placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511, relevant portion of which reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Sadakali S/O Lingappa, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 22 December, 2020

AIR 1975 SC 1962] , this Court considered a similar issue, placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [AIR 1954 SC 15 : 1954 Cri LJ 230] and held as under: (Balaka Singh case [(1975) 4 SCC 511 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 601 : AIR 1975 SC 1962] , SCC p. 517, para 8) "8. ... the court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation, the court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle will not apply."
Karnataka High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Irfan Dastagir Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2019

66. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment reported in Balaka Singh vs. State of Punjab , 1975 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 601.This judgment is on appreciation of evidence. It shows that when there are 8 witnesses who had seen the incident and they, with complete unanimity implicated four accused persons who were acquitted by High Court; as the case against acquitted accused persons and appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court was inextricably mixed up, it was not possible to sever one from another. Acquittal of 4 accused persons was maintained by Hon'ble Apex Court as their names were not found in proved ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 03:38:08 ::: rsk 30/31 J-APEAL-185-15.doc statement of Investigating Officer.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manvi Chopra vs State on 11 December, 2025

23. The testimony of sole interested material witness complainant/ victim 'M' PW1 is embedded with material contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities, as stated above. It is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence of PW1 in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15; and Balaka Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962).
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Irappa @ Chermal Subhash Dhangar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2019

66. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment reported in Balaka Singh vs. State of Punjab , 1975 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 601.This judgment is on appreciation of evidence. It shows that when there are 8 witnesses who had seen the incident and they, with complete unanimity implicated four accused persons who were acquitted by High Court; as the case against acquitted accused persons and appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court was inextricably mixed up, it was not possible to sever one from another. Acquittal of 4 accused persons was maintained by Hon'ble Apex Court as their names were not found in proved ::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 03:38:02 ::: rsk 30/31 J-APEAL-185-15.doc statement of Investigating Officer.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next