State vs . Mohd. Akbar @ Guddu, on 5 September, 2019
In A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka reported as (2011) 6 SCC 279 ,
the Supreme Court held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 198 (2.19 seconds)Documents citing
A.Shankar vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2011
State vs . 1. Sukhdev on 25 January, 2014
In case A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2011 VII AD
(SC) 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :
"....... Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence
brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the
credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire
evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the
touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal
variations in the statements of a witness cannot be
dubbed as improvements as the same may be
elaborations of the statement made by the witness
earlier.
State vs . 1. Ran Singh on 14 December, 2013
In case A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2011 VII AD (SC)
37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :
State Of Maharashtra vs Narayan Mote And Ors on 2 April, 2018
Yet in another reported judgment in
the case of A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka
[cited supra] in para 26 the Supreme Court
held thus:
State vs . Hans Kumar on 26 October, 2013
In case A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2011 VII AD
(SC) 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :
"....... Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence
brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the
credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire
evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the
touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal
variations in the statements of a witness cannot be
dubbed as improvements as the same may be
elaboration of the statements made by the witness
95 of 99
96
FIR No. 48/09
PS - Alipur
earlier.
State vs . Vipin Nahar @ Dev on 26 August, 2014
At the cost of repetition, in case A. Shankar Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2011 VII AD (SC) 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held :
"....... Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence
brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the
credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire
evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the
touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal
variations in the statements of a witness cannot be
dubbed as improvements as the same may be
elaborations of the statement made by the witness
earlier.
S.C. No. 107/10 Fir No. 341/2009 State vs . Salahuddin & Anr. 1 /39 on 7 February, 2014
19. An argument was made that there are discrepancies in the
prosecution story which creates a doubt and the benefit of the said
doubt should go to the accused persons. It is not the law that when-
ever there is a discrepancy, invariably its benefit has to go to the ac-
cused. Only in the case of major discrepancies, such a benefit can
S.C. No. 107/10 FIR No. 341/2009 State vs. Salahuddin & Anr. 32 /39
go to an accused but if the discrepancy is only minor in nature, no
fatality can be attached to it. In A. Shankar vs. State of Karnataka
2011 (6) SCC 279, Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observations
in this regard:
S.C. No. 58/10 Fir No. 619/06 State vs . Sukhbir Etc. 1 /36 on 28 February, 2014
15. An argument was made that there are discrepancies in the
prosecution story which creates a doubt and the benefit of the said
doubt should go to the accused persons. It is not the law that when-
ever there is a discrepancy, invariably its benefit has to go to the
accused. Only in the case of major discrepancies, such a benefit
can go to an accused but if the discrepancy is only minor in nature,
no fatality can be attached to it. In A. Shankar vs. State of
Karnataka 2011 (6) SCC 279, Hon'ble Supreme Court made following
observations in this regard:
S.C. No. 45/10 Fir No. 698/08 Eva ... vs . State 1/29 on 12 March, 2014
25. It is not the law that whenever there is a discrepancy, invari-
ably its benefit has to go to the accused. Only in the case of major
discrepancies, which make the prosecution case absolutely unaccept-
able, that such a benefit can go to an accused but if the discrepancy is
only minor in nature, no fatality can be attached to it. In A. Shankar
vs. State of Karnataka 2011 (6) SCC 279, Hon'ble Supreme Court made
following observations in this regard:
State vs . Rajesh @ Raj on 16 April, 2014
In case A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2011 VII AD
(SC) 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :
"....... Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence
brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the
credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire
evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the
touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal
variations in the statements of a witness cannot be
dubbed as improvements as the same may be
elaborations of the statement made by the witness
earlier.