Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 732 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973

Criminal Case/570/2005 on 23 July, 2013

6. In the instant case the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses and out of them PW2 Sh. Manjeet Singh is the most important and vital witness being the complainant of the incident. PW2 has failed to identify the accused to be the perpetrator of the present offence. On the other hand, he stated that he had not seen the accident and his statement was not recorded. Only his signatures were obtained. He usually signs anywhere. He did not know the spot where the accident FIR No. 570/05 State v. Jagir Singh Page No. 5 of 7 had occurred. He denied to have taken the injured in his truck to the hospital. He stated not to be present on the spot. He stated he does not even know the name of the deceased. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State but despite that nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from his testimony. The prosecution through the testimony of PW2 was to prove the incident of rashness or negligence to take proper care on the part of the accused while driving beyond any reasonable doubt. However, he did not state anything against the accused. Thus, merely by establishing the incident, the accused cannot be convicted unless he is stated to be the culprit of the said offence.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goverdhan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 January, 2025

“15. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh [(1974) 3 SCC 277 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 886] and Lehna v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 76 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 526] . Stress was laid by the appellant-accused on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of the rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence’.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Ajay Jakhar vs M/S Insta Kart Services Pvt Ltd on 20 February, 2026

53. There can be no dispute about proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh's case (supra) and by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sonal Garments' case (supra) that if the Workman refuses to resume his duties, pursuant to an offer of Management to reinstate him into the job, no back wages can be awarded in his favour at least with effect from the date of such an offer of Management. However, in the case in hand, it has already been observed herein above that Management no. 2 has failed to prove having given any offer to Workman to resume his duties with Management no. 2, prior to filing of its written statement on 14.01.2026. On the other hand, its offer in the written statement was immediately accepted by Workman, where after, he has resumed his duties with Management no. 2 w.e.f. 24.01.2026.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 29 February, 2024

"25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.620 of 2021 dt.29-02-2024 28/29 other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the Court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that is is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by report to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh3, a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Raksha Jindal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 March, 2015

424. Learned ASG has argued that no animus or ill-will can be attributed to the said witnesses; who are senior IAS officials and have deposed consistently against A-1. It has been held by the Supreme Court in its decision reported as The State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 that in arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of crime, the court has to judge evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. The fact that the witnesses are not able to recollect the dates of the said meetings or have confused themselves at certain junctures on the sequence of events is not unnatural but rather a hallmark of truth as they made their statements before the investigation agency after a period of four years and tendered their evidence before the Trial Court after nearly a decade.
Delhi High Court Cites 166 - Cited by 46 - S Mridul - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Suvarnamma & Anr on 14 October, 2014

To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277) and Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76). Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co- accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called “a mandatory rule of evidence”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 83 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next