Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974

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

19. Great emphasis was laid on Exhibit P. 4 and the evidence of the Doctor, in contending that injuries Nos. 10 and 11 on the head of the deceased could not have been caused by choppers. It was contended that it cannot be taken that the blunt side of the choppers were used for inflicting the said injuries, unless the witnesses have said so. For this purpose, much emphasis was laid down in Hallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1974 Cri LJ 1385) (SC) (supra), in which it was observed "We should have thought that normally when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether the sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon." A spear and a chopper are totally different type of weapons. A spear is essentially a piercing weapon, whereas a chopper is used for cutting as well as hitting heavy blows. We have seen the choppers and we found that the blunt side of the choppers are very heavy and can cause the injuries found on the head of the deceased, which is supported by the medical evidence. There may be a normal presumption that when a spear is used, normally the sharp edge will be aimed at the victim. So far as choppers are concerned, there can be no such presumption, as either the sharp edge or the blunt edge may be used for achieving the objective. It is therefore not necessary for the eye-witnesses to say as to which side of the weapon of the choppers was aimed at the deceased and there was no need for the prosecution to elicit such information. It is also to be noted that the assailants were as many as 22 in number and the victims were merely seven in number and that it may not be possible for any one to notice as to which side of the weapon was used during the assault.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M P Chinnappa - Full Document

Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 10 November, 2003

In support of this contention counsel invited our attention to two decisions, namely, Hallu v., State of M.P., [1974] 4 SCC 300 and Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1976] 1 SCC 750. In his submissions, therefore the injury found on the chest could not be attributed to Gian Singh, who is stated to have used the gandasi. We see no merit in this contention for the simple reason that the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that Gian Singh used the blunt side of the gandasi. If the prosecution witnesses were silent in this behalf of the submission of counsel would have carried weight. But where the prosecution witnesses categorically state that the blunt side of the weapon was used there is no room for believing that the sharp side of the weapon which would be normally used had in fact been used. The observations in the aforesaid two judgments do not lay down to the contrary. In fact in the first mentioned case it is clearly stated that if the prosecution witnesses have clarified the position, their evidence would prevail and not the normal inference. Counsel, however, made a grievance that the prosecution had not tried to elicit the opinion of PW-1 Dr. Malhotra on the question whether such an abrasion was possible by a gandasi blow.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 27 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Musa Ahmad Haji Vali vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2003

When according to the ld. advocate for the appellants, there were no injuries to any of the injured by sharp cutting weapon. Muddamal Article tabal is a weapon like an Axe. The say of the injured witness therefore is not creditworthy because the say of the injured eye witness are not corroborated by the medical evidence. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Hallu and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, as reported in AIR 1974 SC 1936 and argued that when a witness states that an axe was used, there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon. Therefore, it is contended that when an eye witness states that weapon like tabal and sword were used than in absence of clarification it should be taken that sharp-edged of the weapon were used. But according to the medical evidence in this case, there are no injuries by sharp cutting weapon or incised wound. The say of the eye witnesses, according to the ld. advocate for the appellants, cannot be believed because the same is contradicted by the medical evidence. On probability, it was contended that when seven accused alleged to have attacked the prosecution witnesses with the weapons which are attributed to accused, it is difficult to believe that none of the prosecution witness would suffer grievous injuries. It was contended that only one witness i.e. Mustak had grievous injury of fracture, except that, according to the medical evidence, none of the injuries suffered by the injured witnesses was of grievous nature. The case of the prosecution, therefore, is not probable and doubtful. According to the ld. advocate for the appellants, the evidence of prosecution are in two sets, one set is of injured eye witnesses who are interested, while second set of evidence is of independent eye witnesses. It was contended that the independent eye witness PW-10 Bhikhabhai Govindbhai, PW-11 Din Mahmad Gul Mahmad, PW-12 Mahmad Karim Malek and PW-13 Saiyedali Zulfikarali have not supported the prosecution version and have stated that, in fact, a mob of 50 to 100 persons attacked the injured and caused injuries to witnesses. It was contended that the evidence of the independent witnesses is reliable and is more probable that the incident had occurred as narrated by the independent eye witnesses referred by him. It is contended that on the otherside, evidence of interested injured eye witnesses whose evidence is required thorough scrutiny. On scrutiny of the evidence of interested injured eye witnesses, it is found that the same is tainted by contradiction which lends no credits to their say. According to the ld. advocate for the appellants, the first contradiction in respect of conflict between the medical evidence as well as ocular evidence about the use of the weapon. He pointed out contradiction amongst 7 eye witnesses. It was stated that according to the prosecution witness no. 1 Ibrahim, appellant no. 5 inflicted the blow of tabal to witness Mustak and appellant no. 3 inflicted sword blow to PW-6 Inayat. This is the version of PW-1 in the complaint ex. 156, while in evidence PW-1 stated that the appellant no. 5 inflicted blows by hockey, appellants no. 4 and 2 inflicted sticks blows on witness Inayat. The appellant no. 1 inflicted blows to witness Mustak. He draw the attention of this court on deposition of PW-5 Mustak, PW-6 Inayat, PW-7 Huriben, PW-8 Sayaraben and PW-9 Salim in respect of who inflicted blows with which weapons. Some contradictions were brought to the notice, for example, PW-1 stated in evidence that appellants no. 4 and 2 attacked Inayat with sticks but this fact has not been stated by PW-5 Mustak. While PW-5 Mustak is not stating anything about the injuries caused to Inayat and Huriben. While PW-6 Inayat attributes two injuries of appellant no. 1 by tabal to PW-1. PW-6 Inayat also makes improvement to the extent that he stated that the appellant no. 1 inflicted fist and kick blows to PW-1 Ibrahim. In respect of the use of the weapon and injury, attention was also drawn upon the deposition of PW-7 and 8. It was stated that, therefore, each witness contradicts the other in a manner that one witness did not say about particular injury, while the other witness describes the same. On that count also, the evidence of injured eye witnesses is doubtful. It was contended that important aspect in contradiction is in respect of deposition of PW-7 Huriben who, in her examination in cross admitted that she was attacked by mob of 150 to 200 persons attacked her. She also admitted that there was a crowd of 200 persons. She also admitted that in this scuffle where crowd of 150 to 200 persons were involved, she could not recognised who was fighting with whom and what weapons were used. According to the ld. advocate for the appellants, the whole prosecution case so far as it relates to injured eye witnesses destroyed by the evidence of PW-7 Huriben and this fact supports the version of independent eye witness who stated that a mob of 100 to 150 persons attacked. Likewise, it was contended that PW-5 Mustak injured witness, in his deposition stated that when he reached along with other at bus stand, the bus has already at the bus stand and he found his father in the bus blood smeared and he did not know that who caused those injuries and, therefore, it was contended that in these circumstances and with this contradiction, it is not probable at all that PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 were eye witnesses of the incident. The case of PW-1 is falsified by PW-7 Huriben on account of contradiction above referred. On account of probability, therefore, it is contended that PW-12 Mahmad Karim Malek and PW-13 Saiyedali Zulfikarali, driver and conductor of the said bus involved in the incident, are absolutely independent witnesses and produces true account of the incident occurred. There is no reason to disbelieve hem and above all, they are not declare hostile witnesses by prosecution. The evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 appears to be unimpeachable and in view of this evidence, the evidence of injured witnesses may not be believed. It was also contended that PW-10 Bhikha Govind and PW-11 Din Mohmad Gul Mahmad also are independent witnesses. As per prosecution case itself, both of them intervened and rescued the prosecution witnesses. But none of them supported the prosecution version though they are declared hostile witnesses. In these circumstances as contended by ld. advocate for the appellants, the evidence of injured witnesses is not creditworthy, while second set of evidence that is version given by the independent witnesses who are eye witnesses, according to the prosecution, is creditworthy.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

State Of Uttarakhand vs Sohan Singh And Ors. on 29 March, 2007

In support of this contention counsel invited our attention to two decisions, namely, Hallu v. State of M.P. (supra) and Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab 1976 SCC (Cri) 182 : 1976 Cri LJ 1883. In his submission, therefore, the injury found on the chest could not be attributed to Gian Singh who is stated to have used the gandasi. We see no merit in this contention for the simple reason that the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that Gian Singh used the blunt side of the gandasi. If the prosecution witnesses were silent in this behalf the submission of counsel would have carried weight. But where the prosecution witnesses categorically state that the blunt side of the weapon was used there is no room for believing that the sharp side of the weapon which would be normally used had in fact been used. The observations in the aforesaid two judgments do not lay down to the contrary. In fact in the first-mentioned case it is clearly stated that if the prosecution witnesses have clarified the position, their evidence would prevail and not the normal inference. Counsel, however, made a grievance that the prosecution had not tried to elicit the opinion of P.W. 1 Dr. Malhotra on the question whether such an abrasion was possible by a gandasi-blow.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - J C Rawat - Full Document

Karan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 13 September, 2023

Further, relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Hallu and Others vs. State of MP, AIR 1974 SC 1936, it is contended on behalf of appellants that it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witnesses as to whether a sharp-edged weapon was used in the alleged incident by the accused person and relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1999 SC 767, it is contended on behalf of appellants that as per the opinion of doctor the injuries sustained by deceased could have been caused by hard and deadly weapon and there was no injury of sharp-edged weapon on the body of deceased which appears doubtful the evidence of above witnesses in regard to causing injuries to the deceased by which of accused by means of which weapon leading to death of deceased and it is highly improbable for use of sharp-cutting weapon by the accused persons in the alleged incident. (5) The next contention on behalf of appellants that accused Rajmohan and Karan were also injured in the incident in order to right to private defence and no explanation of injuries sustained by them is fatal to the prosecution case, which shows that the prosecution has suppressed the real genesis of case and an inference can be drawn against the prosecution that the prosecution has suppressed the real genesis and origin of occurrence and has not produced the true version. The witnesses who have specifically denied the presence of injuries on the person of accused is lying on 9 the most material point and, therefore, their evidence is not reliable and, thus, it is rendered probable so as to throw a doubt on the prosecution version.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - D K Agarwal - Full Document

Manroop And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 February, 2008

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hallu and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh held that normally when a witness says that an axe or a spear is used, there is no warrant of supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if that be the implication, it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Sanchaita Investments And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 5 March, 1981

99. Reference was next made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh . At para. 7 of the Report it appears that High Court refused to attach any importance to the Report given by one Tibhu as the names of the appellants were not mentioned in the Report on the ground that though it was earliest in point of time, it could not be treated as the First Information Report under Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, as Tibhu had no personal knowledge of the incident and the Report was based on hearsay evidence. The Supreme Court observed as follows:--
Calcutta High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next