Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Pratap Rana And Another vs The State Of Haryana on 20 July, 2012

Amir Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2020

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.130 of 2013 dt.29-05-2020 141/145 In the case of Rana Pratap and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1983 SC 680 (Supra), the question of value of the evidence given by the chance witness came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passerby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere chance witnesses. In the present case, Rajaram Singh has stated that he used to go to the shop in morning and when he heard he rushed there and found Ranjit Kumar Singh and Amir Singh have resorted firing, gunshot of Ranjit Singh hit the elbow and Amir Singh resorted two firings, one firing missed and second firing hit the abdominal portion of the body. So evidence of Rajaram Singh (P.W.1) supported by others are sufficient to prove that the injuries have been caused by two persons and Munna Kumar had thrown piece of brick and Arun Singh did not fire, but came with pistol. So evidence of all witnesses are corroborative to each other and to say that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.130 of 2013 dt.29-05-2020 142/145 Rajaram Singh is a chance witness and does not have the evidentiary value having no substance in the submission.
Patna High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Krishna & Anr vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 January, 2020

15. Ms. Tiwari further submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are corroborating and trustworthy and have established the incident without any iota of doubt, describing the detailed role played by each appellant in the commission of the alleged crime. She further submitted that the testimony of PW-10 Saurabh Arora is consistent and corroborative in nature and minor contradictions and discrepancies which have arisen in his testimony can be ignored, due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the incident. To substantiate her arguments, learned APP for State relied CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 10 of 67 upon the case of Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1965 SC 202; Mano v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 13 SCC 795; Rana Pratap and ors v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1983 SC 680.
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - S D Sehgal - Full Document

Vijendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 January, 2017

27. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also impressed upon us to discard the testimony of PW-3, Tedda, on the ground that he is a chance witness. According to him, his presence at the spot is doubtful and his evidence is not beyond suspicion. Commenting on the argument of chance witness, a two-Judge Bench in Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana20 was compelled to observe:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Gali Hari Babu Dancer Hari, Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 27 July, 2020

Criminal Courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 18 reaction which the eye witness can make. It is fallacious to suggest that PW-11 would have done this or that on seeing the incident. Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural. (Vide: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana4 and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat5) .
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vadlamukkala Suresh vs The State Of A.P. on 27 July, 2020

Criminal Courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 18 reaction which the eye witness can make. It is fallacious to suggest that PW-11 would have done this or that on seeing the incident. Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural. (Vide: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana4 and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat5) .
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next