Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (2.51 seconds)
Documents citing Gauri Shanker Sharma Etc vs State Of U.P. Etc on 12 January, 1990

Shanker vs Govt Of Delhi ( Nct Of Delhi) on 29 April, 2013

5. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that appellant Shanker was not driving the vehicle in question but was sitting along with driver and when he was arrested by the police, no public witness was joined by the police and the car from which recovery had been effected by the police as per the case of the prosecution did not belong to the appellant and had been released on superdari to Sh Deepak who is neither accused nor witness in the case. All the witneses examined by the prosecution are police officials. It is argued by Ld counsel for appellant that from the record it is clear that when the case property was produced in the court during evidence, same was in unsealed condition, hence the Cr. A NO. 82/12 Page 3 of 8 pages Shanker vs The State 4 recovery is disputed therefore the order of Ld Trial Court should be set aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushrita Saren & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2025

The anguish expressed in Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. [1990 Supp SCC 656 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 67 : AIR 1990 SC 709] , Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1992) 3 SCC 249 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 629] , NilabatiBehera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : AIR 1993 SC 1960] , Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of 25 Bihar [1994 Supp (3) SCC 100 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1666] , KewalPati v. State of U.P. [(1995) 3 SCC 600 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 556] , Inder Singh v. State of Punjab [(1995) 3 SCC 702 :
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - T Ghosh - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Sri Goverdhana Murthy @ Goverdhan on 20 March, 2020

47. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgment in the case of SHANKER v. STATE OF U.P reported in (1975) 3 SCC 851 and brought to our notice para No.11 of the judgment. Referring to the same, he would contend that there is a delay in registering the case and also sending FIR to Court. In the said judgment, it is held that it is well settled that unless a first information report can be tendered in evidence, such as a dying declaration falling under Section 32(1) as to the cause of the informant's death, or as part of the informant's conduct under Section 8, it can ordinarily be used only for the purpose of corroborating, contradicting or discrediting and the same is not free from reasonable doubt.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S Satyanarayana - Full Document

Dalbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 26 June, 2023

On the proposition that testimony of related witnesses if found to be natural and truthful cannot be discarded merely on being an interested witness, he relied upon- Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 and Banti v. State of M.P., (2004) 1 SCC 414; ocular evidence prevails over medical evidence and minor variations to be ignored- Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532; in custodial death cases it is difficult to collect evidence against the police officials responsible since they are in charge and can easily manipulate the evidence- Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 656 and State v. Sanvlo Naik, (2017) 16 SCC 54; delay in examination of a particular witness does not make it unreliable and omission on part of IO should not be taken in favour of the accused- V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand (supra); even if investigation is suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently- State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715; question not put to witness in cross-examination, cannot be taken benefit of- Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 716; necessary on part of accused to obtain vital information during cross-examination- Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 738; prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt- Karan Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52; entire statement of hostile witness need not be discarded- Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn., (1976) 1 SCC 727161; statement under section 161 CrPC can be relied upon- Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396; conviction can also be based on circumstantial evidence- Brijlala Pd. Sinha CRL.A.488/2019 & connected appeals Signature Not Verified Pages 31/59 Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:26.06.2023 19:04:11 v. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 699 and GaganKanojia v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; if there is defect or omission in framing of charge, accused may still be convicted for the offence actually committed and proved on the basis of evidence on record- K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217and Kamil v. State of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 600. The Evidence
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next