Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 282 (1.92 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Narain Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 15 July, 1975

Narayan Singh And Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2013

10. "......................... The medical report submitted by PW 2 shows that there were only contusions, 15 abrasions and fractures, but there was no incised wound on the left knee of the deceased as alleged by PW 5. If her evidence that all the accused inflicted injuries on the deceased with their respective weapons has to be accepted, then there would be incised wounds all over the body of the deceased, but the medical report shows that not a single incised wound was found on the body of the deceased. Thus the evidence of PW 5 is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence. This Court in Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab has laid down that if the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. There is no explanation for the apparent total inconsistency between the evidence of PW 5 and the medical evidence."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document

State vs 1. Bijju on 30 November, 2018

In view of law laid down in  Ram Narain Singh vs. State of Punjab, (supra), it is held that prosecution failed to   prove   beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   accused   persons   in furtherance of their common intention or any of the accused persons voluntarily   caused   hurt   to   PW­2,   Parmod   Kumar,   Thus   all   the accused are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kenchanagoudra vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2022

83. Even otherwise, a wound at the time of examination of the deceased for the first time measured 7 cm x 1 cm which became 15 inches at the time of postmortem. The triangular shape bone was hanging with three holes with burn marks. The ocular evidence does not indicate as to how these injuries had been caused, more Crl.A. No.100106/2016 180 particularly as to the holes in the said bone which are burnt. There is nothing on record to indicate how the same could have occurred. Therefore, the ocular evidence provided no explanation to the injuries found on the deceased, thus, the said ocular evidence also cannot be believed. That apart, as observed hereinabove, the small intestine contained semi-digested food and the large intestine contained fecal matter even after a period of six days of the injuries having occurred during which time the deceased was in a coma and did not have any solid or semi solid food. This aspect has not been dealt with by the prosecution or the trial Court. All these aspects are extremely damaging to the prosecution case as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Narain's case (supra), these aspects would negate and deals a deathblow to the case of the prosecution resulting Crl.A. No.100106/2016 181 in the irresistible conclusion that no such offence as alleged had occurred.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Md. Nasim vs The State Of Bihar on 7 January, 2025

32. Following the law laid down in Narain Singh case [(1964) 1 Cri LJ 730 : (1963) 3 SCR 678] the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : 1992 Cri LJ 3454] further dealt with the question whether a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC can constitute the sole basis for conviction and recorded a finding that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC of 1973 can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial though such a statement strictly is not evidence and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1386 of 2017 dt.07-01-2025 17/20 observed in para 52 thus : (Sukhdev Singh case [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 : 1992 Cri LJ 3454] , SCC p. 744) "52. Even on first principle we see no reason why the court could not act on the admission or confession made by the accused in the course of the trial or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code."
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Anshuman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next