Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Kapildeo Mandal & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2007

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Mohd.Parvez Abdul Kayuum on 5 July, 2019

In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2008) 16 SCC 99, all the eyewitnesses had categorically stated that the deceased was injured by the use of firearm, whereas the medical evidence 71 specifically indicated that no firearm injury was found on the deceased. This Court held that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eyewitnesses has to get priority as medical evidence is basically opinionative. But, when the evidence of the eyewitnesses is totally inconsistent with the evidence given by the medical experts then evidence is appreciated in a different perspective by the courts. It was observed that when medical evidence specifically rules out the injury claimed to have been inflicted as per the eyewitnesses' version, then the court can draw adverse inference that the prosecution version is not trustworthy. This judgment is clearly attracted to the present case.” (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 135 - Cited by 18 - A Mishra - Full Document

Antony vs State Represented By on 18 November, 2019

17. In the final opinion, it has been specifically stated that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries. Though the Postmortem Doctor had indicated that there is a possibility of sustaining head injuries due to hit with bricks, the Duty Doctor / P.W.5, who had initially treated the deceased prior to his death had stated that the death could have been caused on account of stabs with sharp edged weapon. Moreover, on a perusal of the Rough Sketch (Ex.P.23) and Observation Mahazar (Ex.P22), there was no mention about bricks used for attacking the deceased and his relatives. More so, there is a contradiction between the witnesses and the prosecution had not taken any steps to clear the suspicion over the said contradiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapildeo Mandal and Others vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 699 (SC) observed that in case of variance between the medical evidence and ocular evidence, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and the conviction, if any imposed, should be set aside. For the purpose of clarity, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to that effect is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Chandanji @ Gato Chhanaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2020

In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2008) 16 SCC 99, all the eyewitnesses had categorically stated that the deceased was injured by the use of firearm, whereas the medical evidence specifically indicated that no firearm injury was found on the deceased. This Court held that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evi- dence, oral evidence of eyewitnesses has to get pri- ority as medical evidence is basically opinionative. But, when the evidence of the eyewitnesses is to- tally inconsistent with the evidence given by the medical experts then evidence is appreciated in a different perspective by the courts. It was observed that when medical evidence specifically rules out the injury claimed to have been inflicted as per the eyewitnesses' version, then the court can draw ad- verse inference that the prosecution version is not trustworthy. This judgment is clearly attracted to the present case." (emphasis supplied)
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Bastiram vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 February, 2014

In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar[6] the facts found by the doctor were preferred over the eye witness testimony. The ocular evidence was to the effect that the deceased suffered firearm injuries. However, the doctor conducting the post mortem examination stated that he did not find any indication of any firearm injury on the person of the deceased. No pellets, bullets or any cartridge were found in any of the wounds. Accepting the "medical evidence" on facts, it was observed that, "[T]he medical evidence is to the effect that there were no firearm injuries on the body of the deceased, whereas the eyewitnesses’ version is that the appellant-accused were carrying firearms and the injuries were caused by the firearms. In such a situation and circumstance, the medical evidence will assume importance while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution by the court and will have priority over the ocular version and can be used to repel the testimony of the eyewitnesses as it goes to the root of the matter having an effect to repel conclusively the eyewitnesses’ version to be true."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Monu Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 31 January, 2022

In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, all the eyewitnesses had categorically stated that the deceased was injured by the use of firearm, whereas the medical evidence specifically indicated that no firearm injury was found on the deceased. This Court held that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eyewitnesses has to get priority as medical evidence is basically opinionative. But, when the evidence of the eyewitnesses is totally inconsistent with the evidence given by the medical experts then evidence is appreciated in a different perspective by the courts. It was observed that when medical evidence specifically rules out the injury claimed to have been inflicted as per the eyewitnesses' version, then the court can draw adverse inference that the prosecution version is not trustworthy. This judgment is clearly attracted to the present case."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 10 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Pradeep Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 10 August, 2022

Reliance is placed on judgment in matters of Salim Zia vs. State of U.P reported in 1979 Supreme Court 391, Ram Narain Vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1727 and Kapildeo Mandan and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2008(1) PLJR (SC) 209 for contending that the prosecution case becomes doubtful because of variation in the ocular and medical evidence. It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no source of light for establishing identity of the accused. PW 6 Sakim Shah is stating the direction from which the accused and their associates were holding deceased Munna Mian and this fact, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.224 of 2014 dt.10-08-2022 9/36 according to the learned counsel for the appellant, makes the prosecution case doubtful.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Vijay Singh vs State Of M.P on 1 November, 2022

In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, all the eyewitnesses had categorically stated that the deceased was injured by the use of firearm, whereas the medical evidence specifically indicated that no firearm injury was found on the deceased. This Court held that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eyewitnesses has to get priority as medical evidence is basically opinionative. But, when the evidence of the eyewitnesses is totally inconsistent with the evidence given by the medical experts then evidence is appreciated in a different perspective by the courts. It was observed that when medical evidence specifically rules out the injury claimed to have been inflicted as per the eyewitnesses' version, then the court can draw adverse inference that the prosecution version is not trustworthy. This judgment is clearly attracted to the present case."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next