Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Niranjan Prasad & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1996

Jharia Oraon vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 10 August, 2004

In the case of Niranjan Prasad v. State of M.P. reported in 1996 (1) East Cr C 716 (SC), the Supreme Court noticed that the eye-witnesses stated that the deceased was assaulted with sharp cutting weapon, however, the evidence of the doctor who held post mortem examination shows that the deceased had no injury which could be caused by sharp cutting weapon; and, indeed, he had sustained only one injury which could be caused, according to the doctor, by a blunt weapon only. The Supreme Court held that if on the basis of the objective findings of the doctor, the trial Court found it unsafe to rely upon the ocular version of the incident as was given by the four witnesses in the said case, it cannot be said that the finding of the trial Court in this regard was against the weight of evidence or perverse.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Swamygowda And Others, Etc. vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 1996

17. Reference was made to Niranjan Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 (2) Supreme 671 : (1996 Cri LJ 1987) (SC), to support the contention that the oral evidence should be rejected. In the said case, the trial Court found it unsafe to rely upon the ocular version of the incident in the state of medical evidence that there was no injury which could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon. This decision also does not help the case of the appellants as the medical evidence could not rule out the use of choppers in inflicting the injuries on the head of the deceased.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M P Chinnappa - Full Document

Saradhuram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 December, 2009

16. As held by the Apex Court and the High Court of Bombay in the matters of Niranjan (supra) and Mahadeo (supra), conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence is fatal to the prosecution. In the present case, ocular evidence is well corroborated by the medical evidence. Definitely, Sukho Bai (PW-1) is wife and closed relative of the deceased. Her presence at the time of incident at night was natural. Only on the ground that she is relative, her evidence cannot be discarded.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - T P Sharma - Full Document

Kuldeep vs State Of U.P. on 27 April, 2020

31. Niranjan Prasad v State of MP, 1996 CrLJ 1987 (SC), was a murder trial, testimony of eye-witnesses was that the deceased and injured were assaulted with sharp cutting weapons but their testimony was not corroborated with medical evidence showing deceased having been injured by blunt object (weapon) only. Post-Mortem Report showing that the deceased had no injury which could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon and, indeed, he had sustained only one injury which could be caused, according to the doctor by a blunt weapon only. Keeping in view the sharp contrast in between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused persons.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Srivastava - Full Document

Janak Khemsingh Marakam vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 April, 2003

7. The learned Advocate for the defence made a fable attempt to argue that the offence would not be of a murder but would be one punishable under section 304 Part I as being culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. He was, however, unable to pinpoint the exception under section 299 of I.P.C. under which the conviction could be reduced to fall under section 304 Part I. He also referred to two judgments. The first being in the case of Niranjan Prasad v. State of M.P., reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. 1987, in which the Apex Court on the facts of the case allowed an appeal against conviction in an offence of murder on the ground that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was to the effect that the deceased and injured were assaulted with sharp cutting weapon but was not corroborated by medical evidence which indicated that the deceased was injured by blunt weapon only. In our opinion, this ruling will not apply to the present case. In the present case, the sole eye-witness does not indicate as to whether the injury was caused by the sharp edge of the axe or by its blunt ends. The doctor has clearly opined that this injury was possible from the side of the weapon where the blade had a joint. To our mind, this could only mean that the injury was possible from the blunt part of the blade, other than its sharp side.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R S Mohite - Full Document
1   2 Next