Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Duraipandi Thevar And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 1972

Krishnan @ Kittu vs State on 27 September, 2021

22.In fact, on going the through the evidence given by P.W.2, who is the victim girl, it appears that her evidence is in the form of inspiring the confidence of this Court. At this juncture, it would be relevant to see the 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.(MD)No.197 of 2016 judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Duraipandi Thevar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1973 SC 659, wherein it has been held that the medical evidence is usually opinion evidence. The medical opinion by itself, however, does not prove or disprove the prosecution case, it is merely of advisory character.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Pongiappan - Full Document

Sri Rajib Malakar vs The State Of Tripura ----Respondent(S) on 8 October, 2021

In furtherance thereof, the medical evidence is usually opinion evidence, as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Duraipandi Thevar And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1973 SC 659. In absence of any other corroborative evidence, it will be unsafe for us to sustain the conviction of the appellants, even if we lend our support to the medical evidences.
Tripura High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Mani Ram And Anr. on 21 August, 1985

11. Reference may also be made to Duraipandi Thevar and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu 1973 SCC (Cri) 486. In that case as will, an argument based on the time of eating and death was advanced; that the evidence conflicted with the medical evidence. It was observed that "the deposition of PW 1 with respect to time when he and the deceased ate or drunk Kambu Kanji and when the occurrence in question took place cannot be considered to be meticulously precise as if he had noted the time by reference to watch; he must he considered to have deposed about the time more or less according to his general impression. It may also be remembered that his evidence was recorded after a long interval. This criticism was rejected by the High Court and we think rightly.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sanchaita Investments And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 5 March, 1981

97. Reference was next made to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Duraipandi Thever v. State of Tamil Nadu . From the Report it appears that information was given to the effect that a certain person was stated to have hit the deceased without giving the names of the accused persons. It further appears that information was based on village gossip and that the informant was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. In this context, Dua J. in paragraph 7 observed as follows :--
Calcutta High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State vs Sidhartha Vashisht And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

24; Rao Harnarain v. Gumani Ram ; Smt. Padmavati v. R K Karanjia AIR 1963 SC MP 61; Sebastian v. Karunakaran ; Banu Singh v. Emperor X CWN 962; Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu ; State of Delhi v. Sanjay Gandhi ; M.P. Narayana Menon 1925 MADRAS 106; Mohinder Singh v. State AIR 1963 SC 415; Zahiruddin v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 75; R v. Preston (1993) 4 ALL E R 838; Practice Note (1982) 1 ALL E R 734; Jagjit Singh alias Jagga v. State of Punjab ; Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra ; Hallu and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Duraipandi Thevar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ; Somappa Vamanappa madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi v. The State of Mysore ; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ; Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. ; Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat ; Kanhai Mishra alia Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar ; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh ; Basavaraj R.Patil and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ; Dal Singh v. King-Emperor AIR 1917 PC 25; Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad ; State of Kerala v. Ammini and Ors. ; Sidharth and Ors. v. State of Bihar ; Damodar v. State of Rajasthan and Budhsen and Anr. v. State of UP .
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 3 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

State vs Sidhartha Vashisht And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

24; Rao Harnarain v. Gumani Ram ; Smt. Padmavati v. R K Karanjia ; Sebastian v. Karunakaran ; Banu Singh v. Emperor X CWN 962; Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu ; State of Delhi v. Sanjay Gandhi ; M.P. Narayana Menon 1925 Madras 106; Mohinder Singh v. State AIR 1963 SC 415; Zahiruddin v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 75; R v. Preston (1993) 4 ALL E R 838; Practice Note (1982) 1 ALL E R 734; Jagjit Singh alias Jagga v. State of Punjab ; Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra ; Hallu and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Duraipandi Thevar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ; Somappa Vamanappa madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi v. The State of Mysore ; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ; Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. ; Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat ; Kanhai Mishra alia Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar ; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh ; Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ; Dal Singh v. King-Emperor AIR 1917 PC 25; Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad ; State of Kerala v. Ammini and Ors. ; Sidharth and Ors. v. State of Bihar ; Damodar v. State of Rajasthan and Budhsen and Anr. v. State of UP .
Delhi High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

Little Brothers Of The Oppressed vs The Government Of India And Anr. on 10 April, 1991

In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions K. Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu; and 1939 Action for Welfare and awakening in Rural Environment (Award) a Registered Society represented by its Chairman Appellant v. Government of India rep. by Secretary, Minuter of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Anr. Respondents III A.L.T.505. On the other hand, Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that Section 6 of the Act deals with the power of registration of the Central Government and such power of the Central Government to register a society under Section 6 also includes the power to refuse registration. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in appropriate cases, where national security or public interest is involved, the disclosure of reasons for refusing permission to register a society under Section 6(1) of the Act or for refusing prior permission to a society under Section 6(1A) of the Act can be withheld. The learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the exercise of powers by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, because, the respondents only after the consideration of the materials available on record and for valid reasons passed the orders refusing permission, which are challenged in these writ petitions.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Md. Aftab Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 6 October, 2005

11. As regards the above evidence of P.W. 5 who is the sister's husband of the accused, and who was declared hostile, prima facie if a witness is found to have made different statements at different stages, he must be one having no regard for truth, as was observed in the case of K. Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1976 SC 980. However, the evidence of a hostile witness may be considered for what it is worth. The story that the accused accompanied the victim to the hospital in the same taxi has been belied, as discussed earliest. P.W.5 claims to have accompanied the victim to the hospital in his cross-examination which is an uncorroborated testimony. Kalloo to whom the declaration was made by the victim, as alleged, has not been examined.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next