Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 175 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2003

Budhram Jojo vs The State Jharkhand on 18 July, 2023

principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness." The above position was highlighted in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 1 SCC 64 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 7] , SCC pp. 67-68, paras 6-7. Looked at from any angle the judgments of the trial court and the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. It is, thus, evident from the testimony of child witness is not to be discarded if the requirement as stipulated under the statutory command as under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, has been followed by the learned trial Court.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Farid Khan vs The State Of Bihar on 7 October, 2025

28. We have also noticed that in paragraph '21' of her deposition PW-1 has stated that she had not shown the place of occurrence to Daroga Ji, her mother had shown the place of occurrence but after how many days the place of occurrence was shown was not known to PW-1. She remained silent on this question. She did not remember that after how many days of the occurrence she had met Daroga Ji and she also did not remember that at which place Daroga Ji had interrogated her. This witness was suggested by the defence that the appellant, who is the maternal grandfather of the victim, had a land dispute with the 8 Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 7 9 Sarkar, Law of Evidence, 19th Edn., Vol.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Hira Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2025

"15. In order to determine the competency of a child witness, the judge has to form her or his opinion. The judge is at the liberty to test the capacity of a child witness and no precise rule can be laid down regarding the degree of intelligence and knowledge which will render the child a competent witness. The competency of a child witness can be ascertained by questioning her/him to find out the capability to understand the occurrence witnessed and to speak the truth before the court. In criminal proceedings, a person of any age is competent to give evidence if she/he is able to (i) understand questions put as a witness; and (ii) give such answers to the questions that can be understood. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if she/he has the intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto.Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 SCC 64 A child becomes incompetent only in case the court considers that the child was unable to understand the questions and answer them in a coherent and comprehensible manner.[4]If the child understands the questions put to her/him and gives rational answers to those questions, it can be taken that she/he is a competent witness to be examined.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Sadhan Dutta And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 February, 2005

25. From the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratansingh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (supra), we find that the decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial Court may, however, be disturbed by the higher Court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Deb - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next