Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 603 (2.89 seconds)
Documents citing Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999

State vs 1. Hitesh Kumar on 18 January, 2011

47. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported as AIR 1999 SC 3717 that the Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations, whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushil Arora vs State on 8 February, 2017

If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant Crl.A.No.1284/2015 Page 445 of 480 embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (see Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [(1999) 9 SCC 525 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 222] , Rammi v. State of M.P. [(1999) 8 SCC 649 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 26] and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B. [(2012) 7 SCC 646 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 685] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 250 - Cited by 1 - R K Gauba - Full Document

State vs . Babu Lal on 8 April, 2009

" AIR 1999 SC 3717 titled Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana wherein it was observed that any irregularity or illegality during investigation should not be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. It was also observed that discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses cannot affect credibility of evidence of witnesses as corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 February, 2002

34. My attention has also been drawn to some discrepencies in the statements of witnesses e.g. whether prosecutrix or her husband reached their house first, difference as to the exact time of commission of offence etc. Undisputedly, there is bound to be some discrepancies between the bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to discard the evidence on its entirety. Generally, the evidence is recorded after a considerable delay and it is not expected that one would give the exact narration of the fact as to what had happened on a particular day. In the present case the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel are of trivial natures and the same, in my considered view are not of much significance and the same cannot obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. I am fortified in my view by the following observations of the Apex Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (supra) :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Tasleem @ Hattu on 26 May, 2012

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 has observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies in the narration of certain witnesses when they speak out details. The corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reasons therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Vipin Nahar @ Dev on 26 August, 2014

At the cost of repetition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case 'Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana', (1999) 9 SCC 525 has observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies in the narration of certain witnesses when they speak out details. The corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reasons therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Bablu on 24 September, 2013

At the cost of repetition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 has observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies in the narration of certain witnesses when they speak out details. The corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reasons therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Hari Chand on 30 March, 2013

The said discrepancies do not reflect upon the substantive evidence and the probative value of the statement of PW1 - prosecutrix made on material and relevant aspects. Nor do they vitiate or negate the prosecution case which is otherwise proved on record by the clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The version of PW1 - prosecutrix on the core spectrum of the crime has remained intact. Moreover, minor contradictions are merely the inconsistencies on the fringe without materially affecting the credibility of the evidence. It is well settled that there are bound to be some discrepancies in the narration of certain 56 of 59 57 FIR No. 34/09 PS - Begum Pur witnesses when they speak out details. The corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reasons therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable (Ref. Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525).
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rijo Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 2009

"Incidentally, be it noted that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. If the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be Crl.A.1804/2005. 43 justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of, and we do not see any justification to pass a contra note, as well, on perusal of the evidence on record. In this context reference my be made to two decisions of this court. The first being the State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 as also a later one in the case of Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525. Needless to record that difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, may be there bu that by itself would not prompt the Court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. In Leela Ram (1999 (9) SCC 525) this court observed in paragraph 9 of the report:
Kerala High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next