Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Karnail Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 1971

Satish Sah And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 16 March, 1993

In view of such direct evidence of eye witnesses of the firing being available on record some inconsistency relating to the distance from which the gun shots were fired between the evidence of medical expert and the eye witnesses would be of no significance whatsoever vide Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2119 : 1971 Cri. LJ 1463. However, as stated above, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution evidence pertaining to the assault by guns and pistol substantially tallies with the medical evidence available on the record.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahendra Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 May, 2003

In Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1971 SC 2119), this Court held that that where it is proved beyond doubt that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is trustworthy in a case where the accused person committed murder by gunshots, the inconsistency between the opinion of the expert and the eyewitnesses relating to the distance from which gunshots were fired carries no weight. If the eyewitnesses stand the test of their credibility, they have to be believed. Looking to the present case, we see even the doctor's opinion is not clear as the admitted that he cannot give a clear opinion about the distance from which the shot was fired. But he records that it was fired from a higher pedestal which corroborates with the prosecution story. This, coupled with the fact that the eyewitnesses also corroborate to the same effect, the submission on behalf of the accused for all the aforesaid reasons with respect to the first point cannot be sustained."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohan Singh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 1999

In Karnail Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2119, this Court held that where it is proved beyond doubt that the evidence of the eye witnesses are trust worthy in a case where the accused person committed murder by gun shots, the inconsistency between the opinion of expert and the eye witnesses relating to the distance from which gun shots were fired carries no weight. If the eye witnesses stand the test of their credibility they have to be believed. Looking to the present case we see even the doctors opinion is not clear as he admitted that he cannot give clear opinion about the distance from which the shot was fired. But he records that it was fired from higher pedestal which corroborates with the prosecution story. This, coupled with the fact that the eye witnesses also corroborate to the same effect, the submission on behalf of the accused for all the aforesaid reasons with respect to the first point cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 206 - A P Misra - Full Document

Mewa Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 January, 2009

One set of writ petitions bearing Civil Writ Petition Nos.5610 of 1988 (Atama Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others), 6386 of 1988 (Karnail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), 6387 of 1988 (Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), 6388 of 1988 (Raghbir Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others), 6389 of 1988 (Amar Singh @ Baba Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others),6390 of 1988 (Randhir Singh through his L.R. Vs. State of Punjab and others), 6391 of 1988 (Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others),6392 of 1988 (Mehar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), 6393 of 1988 (Pala Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others), 7029 of 1988 (Hazura Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others), 2201 of 1989 (Mukand Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others),5609 of 1989 (Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) and 12869 of 1988 (Bachan Dass Vs. State of Punjab and others), are those where the petitioners have made a challenge to an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), which is sought to be quashed through the writ petitions on the ground that this application would be barred by principle of res judicata.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

Yashvir Singh Son Of Kartar Singh R/O ... vs State Though Police Station Vijaypur on 28 November, 2022

In view of such direct evidence of eye-witnesses of the firing being available on record some inconsistency relating to distance from which gun shots were fired between the evidence of medical expert and the eye- witnesses would be of no significance whatsoever (vide Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2119.) However, as stated above, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution evidence pertaining to the assault by guns and pistol substantially tallies with the medical evidence available on the record. If the principles which are mentioned above are taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that the fact that there was firing by gun is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that the deceased died because of a gun shot wound and there is ocular evidence to support this fact also. But the difficulty arises when we compare the medical evidence with the 39 CRA No. 23/2019 ocular evidence. The medical evidence clearly indicates that the gun shot could not be fired from the position which the prosecution alleges and if gun is fired from that position, then the nature of the injuries will be altogether different. To avoid this, the prosecution has modulated the story by introducing certain facts which create doubt in our mind whether only on the basis of the medical evidence, which is partly supported by ocular evidence, we should convict the accused. The story put forward by prosecution which is belied by the medical evidence is that a shot was fired from a certain height and unless the shot is fired from a certain height, the injuries received by the deceased cannot be inflicted. To meet this difficulty, the prosecution has introduced the fact that the shot was fired after climbing a stone, which is decidedly the modulation and improvement of the story. We have already said that some of the witnesses say that gun was fired from the window and the others say that the gun has fired after climbing the stone. This evidence clearly belies the story put forward by the prosecution, on which the prosecution wants us to convict the accused. There are other eye- witnesses who deposed that they did not see as to who fired the gun. To meet this difficulty, the prosecution has introduced an electric bulb on a pole and this evidence is clearly a false evidence, which is created to prove the story of the prosecution so that it will be plausible to say that the other eye-witnesses saw the incident in the light from the electric bulb. If there would have been no light, then it is not possible to see the person and the place from which the gun was fired. Therefore, even if the principles which are mentioned above, are applied to the case, we are of the opinion that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is the author of the crime and as such, he is entitled to acquittal, giving him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we give benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside his conviction and sentence passed under section 302 of the Indian penal Code by the trial Court.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Lal - Full Document

Sompal vs State Of U.P. on 8 November, 2012

The view in Karnail Singh's case (supra) was also reiterated in State of U.P. Vs. Sugahar Singh and others AIR 1974 SC 423 and Janak Singh and another vs State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2004 SC 2495. The manner of assault as depicted in the FIR and in the statements of both the eye witnesses leave no room for doubt that the accused have fired shots on the deceased from close range and they have chased him from the road up to the field where his dead body was found.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Tiwari - Full Document
1   2 Next