Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Venkatesh And Others on 13 January, 1992

Uttara Kumar Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 December, 2016

15. However, in the instant case, the appellant - Uttara Kumar was not only seen with the deceased on 10.10.2008 but was absconding from the date of the alleged incident and also was found to be working as a labourer by impersonating himself as Rajesh Kurre without furnishing any explanation in this regard. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above mentioned judgments are entirely 6 distinguishable and would not be applicable in the present matter.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Suresh Singh (In Jail) vs State on 12 September, 2003

In this connection, attention of the Court has also been drawn by the counsel for the appellant towards the decision in State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh, referred in 1992 SCC (Cri) 329 : (1992 Cri LJ 797 : AIR 1992 SC 674) in which, it has been held that, prosecution witness did not disclose the relevant information to anyone at the earliest opportunity till Nov. 10th though alleged murder took place on the night of Nov. 8. This creates serious doubts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - U S Tripathi - Full Document

Ved Prakash @ Kalu (Jc) vs State Through The Nct (Delhi) on 24 April, 2007

Mr Hariharan then referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh and Ors. 1992 SCC (Crl.) 329 to submit that failure of an accused to appear before the police cannot give rise to any inference of his guilt and, therefore, the alleged circumstance of abscondence cannot be used against him. He submitted that no attempts were made by the police to visit the petitioner or to arrest him and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner absconding as has been alleged by the prosecution.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Veerabharathi And Etc. vs State on 10 August, 2000

Even if the witnesses failed to watch everything done by all the accused, that could be no reason to reject their testimony. Even their subsequent so-called silence would by itself not a pointer to the uncreditworthiness of their evidence. In our opinion, the substratum of the evidence of the witnesses has remained unshaken, which would go to prove not only the presence of the accused, but their having dealt with Subalakshmi. The learned senior counsel very heavily relied on a decision reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 329 : 1992 Cri LJ 707 (State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh). In paragraph 3, the Supreme Court holds that the failure on the part of the ace witness of the prosecution to disclose the information at the earliest opportunity to anyone has created doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution case. We do not think that a general principle has been stated in the said ruling. It may be that considering the overall circumstances in that case, the Apex Court refused to believe the said witness P.W. 15 Cheluvamma. Indeed, it cannot be stated as a general rule that where an eye-witness fails to disclose the incident of murder, he should invariably be disbelieved. The Supreme Court had found the conduct of the other witnesses including the eye-witnesses in that case to be extremely unnatural and, therefore, refused to place any reliance on their testimony. In the present case, we may point out that both the eye-witnesses had left the village almost immediately after the incident so that they normally could not have disclosed the incident to those whom it mattered. That apart, the witnesses have actually made a claim that they had stated the incident to their near ones - in case of one witness, the wife and in case of other, the father.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babu Roy & Ors vs State Of W.B on 13 May, 2008

Mr. Mukherjee also cited a judgment in thecase of State of Karnataka vs. Venkatesh reporte din 1992 (suppl.)(1) SCC539 which, again, has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of this case. What had happened there was that the ace witness had omitted to disclose the information to anyone for two days from the date of incident coupled with the fact that the evidence of the other witness was also not reliable.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - G C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next