Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Triloki Nath & Ors vs State Of U.P on 28 October, 2005

Bhola Yadav And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2021

reported in AIR 1968 SC 702, State of M.P. v. Ramesh reported in (2005) 9 SCC 705, Triloki Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.570 of 2014 dt. 18-08-2021 38/39 Nath v. State of U.P. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 323, Vidhya Singh v. State of M.P. reported in (1971) 3 SCC 244, Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 612 and in the case of Buta Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1991) 2 SCC 612.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

State vs Hanuman Sharan Shukla @ Raju on 7 February, 2022

48. It is pertinent to remember, that it is well settled proposition of law that principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in context of Indian Criminal Justice System and it is the duty of the Court to extract truth from falsehood, to shift grain from Chaff (per Triloki Nath v. State of UP, AIR 2006 SC 321). The version of the victim child that finger was inserted (ungli dali thee) could be innocuous or product of childhood mind due to passage of time but all SC No.668/18 State vs. Hanuman Sharan Shukla @ Raju Page 32 of 35 said and done, her version is consistent that the accused had touched her with his hands on her private part, and such deviation would not necessarily lead to an inference that she was tutored by anyone. The version of PW-1 that she was playing with other kids and she was enjoying rain bath and that she told her mother what accused had done to her while going downstairs to their portion of hosue and that later she also told such facts to her father while having meals/dinner, appear to be truthful, inspiring confidence and trustworthy.
Delhi District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Kishor Behera And Another vs State Of Odisha on 23 August, 2022

"19. xxx xx This does not mean that there is no finding that there was an unlawful assembly. When the evidence clearly shows that more than five persons armed with swords, spears, etc. had come to the house of Sadruddin with the common object of causing injury, and injured him, the mere fact that several accused were acquitted and only four are convicted, CRLA No.19 of 2004 Page 14 of 23 does not enable the four who are found guilty to contend that Section 149 is inapplicable. We may also in this context refer to the following observations in Masalti v. State or U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133 reiterated in Triloki Nath v. State of U.P. (2005) 13 SCC 323 (SCR p. 149) "In fact, Section 149 makes it clear that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence; and that emphatically brings out the principle that the punishment prescribed by Section 149 is in a sense vicarious and does not always proceed on the basis that the offence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful assembly."
Orissa High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document

State vs Ranbir Singh on 22 December, 2022

131. Falsus in uno, falsus omnibus is not a rule of evidence in the Indian Legal System and it is the duty of the court to extract truth from falsehood, to shift grain from chaff (reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Vs. State of UP AIR 2006 SC 321). It is once again a settled principal of law that the words may not be construed in their literal sense rather the testimonies ought to be read in toto, in the context deposed by the witness, taking in account the entire evidence from top to bottom.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brij Lal And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 September, 2006

This Court after surveying almost all the cases on the point beginning from Mohan Rai v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1968 SC page 1281 to the latest decision of the Apex Court in Triloki Nath and Ors. v. State of U.P. reported in 2005(9) Scale page 76 held that there is no rule that whenever the accused sustain any injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain injury and on the failure of proposition to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused persons by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries much have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested and partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Kailash Raguvir vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2007

This is relevant circumstance and in the matter of Triloki Nath and Ors. v. State of U.P. As the Apex Court took into consideration admitted facts between the parties in that case that the complainant and others who were accused in the counter F.I.R. had been acquitted and the judgment of acquittal had been affirmed upto the Apex Court. Taking this fact with other facts into consideration, the Apex Court rejected the plea of self defence raised by the accused in the said case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

Kallu @ Masih & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2006

When the evidence clearly shows that more than five persons armed with swords, spears etc. had come to the house of Sadruddin with the common object of causing injury, and injured him. The mere fact that several accused were acquitted and only four are convicted, does not enable the four who are found guilty to contend that Section 149 is inapplicable. We may also in this context refer to the following observations in Masalti vs. State of UP [1964 (8) SCR 133], reiterated in Triloki Nath vs. State of UP reported in JT 2005 (9) SC 370 :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 201 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next