State Represented By vs G.Senthilkumar (A1)
In the case of Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported
in [(1978) 4 SCC 161 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 328 (4.28 seconds)Documents citing
Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 February, 1978
4. Gura Singh vs . The State Of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal on 16 November, 2019
97. Further in view of the glaring discrepancies brought out
from evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, the
fact that PW3 / complainant, PW5 / Shri Amit Kumar,
PW8/ Shri Avtar Singh Sagar and PW9 Shri Salim Saifi
have failed to support the prosecution case cannot be
overlooked. Judgments in case of State of Maharashtra
vs. Narsinghrao (Supra) ; Badri Rai & Anr. vs. The
State of Bihar (Supra) ; Inder Singh & Anr. vs. The
State (Delhi Admn.)
Amir Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2020
[Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978)
4 SCC 161 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 564] .
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 November, 2025
[Inder
Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 4 SCC 161 : 1978 SCC
(Cri) 564] . It was remarked that if a case is proved too
perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some
flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it
is argued that it is, too imperfect and thus whether in the
meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent
from being punished, many, guilty men must be callously
allowed to escape.
S.C. No. 19/13 Fir No. 52/11 State vs . Sunil Kumar Etc. 1 /23 on 19 February, 2014
(See Inder Singh and another v. State (Delhi
Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091. Vague hunches cannot take place of ju-
dicial evaluation. 'A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial,
merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also pre-
sides to see that a guilty man, does not escape. Both are public du-
ties.'
9S.C. No. 84/10 Fir No. 208/08 State vs . Satender @ Satte Etc. 1 /99 on 25 March, 2014
(See Inder Singh and another v. State
(Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091. Vague hunches cannot
take place of judicial evaluation. 'A Judge does not preside
over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is
punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man,
does not escape. Both are public duties.'
State vs . 1. Jitender Pal Gulati @ Jeetu on 1 July, 2013
State vs . Rajesh & Another, Fir No. 167/08, Ps ... on 26 September, 2013
16. The complainant has duly proved his complaint Ex. PW1/A and there is no
material contradiction or improvement between his testimony and his complaint Ex.
PW1/A. The contradictions, if any, are minor in nature and they can be attributed to lapse
of time and fallible human memory as the testimonies of the eyewitnesses i.e PW4 and
PW5 were recorded after nearly five years of the incident. The prosecution is not required
to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. It is relevant to mention the
findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
(1978) 4 SCC 161, which are as follows:
"A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a
fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the
case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws
inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One
wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being
punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation."
State vs . Anil Kumar, Fir No.300/99, Ps. Model ... on 6 November, 2013
The defence Counsel has also pointed out alleged
contradiction/improvement between the complaint Ex.PW2/A and in the
testimonies of the eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 in respect of the presence
of PW2 Sh. Rohit Sharma at the spot. The FIR was lodged on the basis of
the said complaint Ex.PW2/A. However, the FIR is not expected to be the
encyclopedia of the entire incident and it need not contain the name of all
the witnesses present at the spot. Only those improvements are fatal, which
are inherently improbable and does not naturally fit into the sequence of
events as asserted in the previous complaints/statements. In the present
case, the alleged improvement does not destroy the crux of the allegations
and the said improvement can at the most be called as explanation of the
attending circumstances at the spot. Thus, the said contention of the
accused also does not hold any ground and therefore, it is discarded. The
prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by
the accused. It is relevant to mention the findings given by Hon'ble Apex
Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 4 SCC
161, which are as follows:
"A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible
doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow
out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that
it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are
prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect.
State vs . Sahid Khan on 23 March, 2012
[See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of
(Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take
place of judicial evaluation. "A judge does not preside over a
criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished.
A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.