Chimpi @ Narendra Yadav vs State Of M.P. on 21 November, 2022
This principle has more recently been accepted in
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 308 (1.57 seconds)Documents citing
Gangabhavani vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors on 4 September, 2013
Narvada And Others vs The State on 1 November, 2019
In Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Ors. Reported in MANU/SC/0897/2013 held as under:-
Rustam Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 31 October, 2022
witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be
called interested only when he or she derives some benefit
from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a
criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or
indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior
enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely
implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v.
Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati
Venkat Reddy).
Ravi Kumar & Ors. vs State on 30 May, 2014
51. The question before us, therefore, is whether the "medical
evidence" should be believed or whether the testimony of the eye
witnesses should be preferred. There is no doubt that ocular evidence
Crl. A. No. 819/2011 Page 46 of 89
should be accepted unless it is completely negated by the medical
evidence. Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259
following State of Hayana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 and
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174
This principle has more recently been accepted in Gangabhavani v.
Rajapati Venkat Reddy, AIR 2013 SC 3681.
Netra Pal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2019
"10. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now wellsettled that a related witness cannot be said to be an ''interested' witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between ''interested' and ''related' witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752; Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298).
The Registrar General vs Venkatesha @ Chandra on 4 September, 2017
52. We are not impressed by this argument. It is a
settled rule of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of
a witness cannot be impeached through the evidence of
another witness. The credit of a witness could be
impeached only in the mode set out in Section 155 of the
Evidence Act; secondly, as pointed out by the learned SPP,
the accused having not challenged the statement of PW-6,
which according to the accused is contrary to Ex.P6, cannot
now seek to dispute this evidence on the ground that the
same is inconsistent with the contents of Ex.P6. We find
support for this view in GANGABHAVANI Vs. RAYAPATI
54
VENKAT REDDY AND OTHERS, 2013 CRL.L.J. 4618 (PARA
Diwari Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2020
83. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, AIR 2013 SC 3681, on the issue of contradictions in evidence has held as under:-
Hani @ Koustubh Samdariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh 44 Cra/538/2012 ... on 10 August, 2018
Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground
that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case
the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy,
it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai Vs. State of
Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1
SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC
206; Dahari & Ors. Vs. State of U. P., (2012) 10 SCC 256; Raju @
Balachandran & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701;
Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC
298; Jodhan Vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52).
Vishnu vs State on 1 April, 2019
28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on
this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the
evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be
carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is
made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a
given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely
on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or
to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to
it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly
should, be relied upon. (See Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar,
(2001) 7 SCC 318; State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1
SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 13
SCC 206; Dahari & Ors. Vs. State of U. P., (2012) 10 SCC
256; Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2012) 12 SCC 701; Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat
Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan Vs. State of M.P.,
(2015) 11 SCC 52)".
Suresh Chandra Pathak vs State Of M.P. on 5 August, 2022
Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati
Venkat Reddy).