Chandanji @ Gato Chhanaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2020
In case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of
Gujarat [1983 (2) SCC 174], the Court held thus: -
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 232 (2.40 seconds)Documents citing
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 22 February, 1983
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Prashant Rana on 11 June, 2021
17. As regards the next ground raised to challenge the order under appeal that the District Commission erroneously relied upon the affidavits of the witnesses to hold that the cause of death was due to an accident, it may be stated here that the ground raised is unsustainable in view of discussion made in the preceeding paras of our order. Moreover, as referred to above, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai versus State of Gujarat (supra) holds water, wherein, it was held that in case of inconsistency between the medical evidence and evidence given by eyewitnesses, the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out. Thus, the District Commission rightly held that the statements of the witnesses given under oath duly tallied with the statements so given by them to the Investigator appointed by the appellants and it was established beyond doubt that the death of Sh. Subhash Chander Rana, the insured, occurred only due to accidental fall and the appellants failed to suggest any of possibility, which caused the death of the policyholder.
Badri Prasad And Others vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2025
On the other hand, in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, it was held if medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses can be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency and the medical evidence.
Vinugiri Motigiri vs State Of Gujarat [Alongwith Criminal ... on 20 July, 2001
22.2 In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 484, the Supreme Court held that ordinarily the value of medical evidence is only corroborative and it proves that injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. Unless the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.
Ram Naresh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 24 October, 2019
The medical evidence does not make the ocular testimony improbable, nor the alleged inconsistency is of such nature that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true. There is no material discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below on this ground. In any event, it has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the evidentiary value of medical evidence is only corroborative and not conclusive and, hence, in case of a conflict between oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be preferred unless the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence. [See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174; Mani Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 18; State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal & Anr., State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs. State of Gujarat, (2003) 5 SCC 223; Thaman Kumar Vs. State of U.T. of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380; Krishnan Vs. State, (2003) 7 SCC 56; Khambam Raja Reddy & Anr. Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 239; State of U.P. Vs. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566; State of U.P. Vs. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542; Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. Vs. State, 2011) 7 SCC 421].
Raja Ram & Others vs State Of U.P. on 11 January, 2019
In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
(Shri) Bhagwan Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 1993
In the case of Sohanki Chimmanbhai Ukabhai v. The State of Gujarat , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed at Page 437
Oridinarily the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It appears that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibily have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsover of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the eye-witnesses, the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.
Dukhiya Majhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2022
In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat this Court observed: (SCC p.
180, para 13)
'13. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It
proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner
alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of
the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly
have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the
eyewitnesses. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes
so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of
injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the
testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground
of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.'
Arshad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 December, 1995
The two cases of the Supreme Court, Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, and Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, cited by the learned Public Prosecutor are quite distinguishable. Expert evidence consists of two parts; data evidence and opinion evidence. The first part of the evidence cannot ordinarily be rejected, whereas the second part may or may not be accepted by a Court. It is in reference to this second part of the evidence of the expert that the Supreme Court has said in the said cases that it is not always preferable to oral evidence of eye-witnesses.
Srimanthula Chinna Sathaiah And Anr. vs State Of A.P. on 11 March, 1998
In Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (supra) the Supreme Court held that when inconsistency between the testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence is found, such inconsistency cannot be a ground for discarding the testimony of eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court elaborating on this proposition has held that ordinarily the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The defence can make use of the medical evidence to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its rum goes too far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye-witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. Thus it is clear that as long as the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out, the inconsistency in medical evidence need not be a ground for rejecting the evidence of prosecution witnesses as spoken to by them narrating the use of weapons by the accused.