Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 551 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs State Of Orissa on 10 October, 2002

Musa Ahmad Haji Vali vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2003

It is important to note here that in the above said case of Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa as reported in (2002)8 SCC p. 381, in para-15 above, the Supreme Court observed that merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. In the present case, the role attributed to the accused no. 6 and 7 causing injuries to daughter of PW-1 could not be proved by the prosecution. On facts, the case is of nature which can be differentiated for the present appellants from the case of the accused who are acquitted and, therefore, on account of that, the whole prosecution case in toto, cannot be thrown out.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

S. Sudalaiyandi vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 March, 2024

26. The learned State counsel has rightly relied on Gangadhar Behera [Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 32] to contend that even in cases where a major portion of the evidence is found deficient, if the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, conviction can be based on it. This Court in Hari ____________ Page 33 of 41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD)Nos.2,4 and 58 of 2017 Chand v. State of Delhi [Hari Chand v. State of Delhi, (1996) 9 SCC 112 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 950] held that : (Hari Chand case [Hari Chand v. State of Delhi, (1996) 9 SCC 112 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 950] , SCC pp. 124-25, para 24) “24. … So far as this contention is concerned it must be kept in view that while appreciating the evidence of witnesses in a criminal trial especially in a case of eyewitnesses the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot apply and the court has to make efforts to sift the grain from the chaff. It is of course true that when a witness is said to have exaggerated in his evidence at the stage of trial and has tried to involve many more accused and if that part of the evidence is not found acceptable the remaining part of evidence has to be scrutinised with care and the court must try to see whether the acceptable part of the evidence gets corroborated from other evidence on record so that the acceptable part can be safely relied upon.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the above principles and availability of the enough material to convict the appellants, the contention of the appellants that their conviction is not sustainable on the principle of parity cannot be accepted.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next