Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1322 (2.62 seconds)
Documents citing Hem Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 29 March, 2005

State vs . Joginder @ Sushe & Ors. Fir No. 176/2006 on 19 August, 2010

2. Hem Raj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana 2005 (2) LRC 36 SC ­ that when the evidence of alleged eye­witnesses raise serious doubts on S.C. No. 50/2007 Page 26 of 42 State vs. Joginder @ Sushe & Ors. FIR No. 176/2006 the point of their presence at time of actual occurrence, unexplained omission to examine independent witness would be assume significance. Further it was held that being like time it was difficult for the eye witnesses to see the assailants from a distance of 30 ft. or more.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ram Vilas Etc. on 20 January, 2016

In the case of "Hem Raj Vs State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2010, it has been observed that : ­ "The fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a FIR No.73/11 State vs. Ram Vilas etc. 28/35 -: 29 :- serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Amongst the independent witnesses one who was very much in the know of things from the beginning was not examined by the prosecution. Non­examination of independent witness by itself may not given rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the alleged eye­ witnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness would assume significance."
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hiralal Pandey & Ors vs State Of U.P on 17 April, 2012

12. We may first examine the contention of Mr. Hansaria that the trial court and the High Court should not have relied on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who were interested witnesses and that the prosecution should have examined the independent witnesses cited in the FIR, namely, Sunder Lal Singh, Lakhpat Sonar and Shisuvir Narain, who as per the FIR shouted at the appellants when they were firing at the deceased. We have perused the decision of this Court in Hem Raj and Others v. State of Haryana (supra) cited by Mr. Hansaria and we find that in the aforesaid decision this Court has held that non- examination of independent witnesses by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution, but when the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses raises serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witnesses would assume significance. Hence, we will have to first consider whether the evidence of the two eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 raises serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 24 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

State vs . Shashi Kumar @ Rahul Etc. on 19 December, 2016

(80)In the case of "Hem Raj Vs State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2010, it has  been observed that : ­  "The   fact   that   no   independent   witness   though   available,   was   examined   and   not   even   an   explanation   was   sought   to   be   given   for   not   examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the   prosecution   case.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next