Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 696 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana vs Bhagirath And Others on 12 May, 1999

Kalappa Hanamant Kamakeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2021

48. Though the accurate cause of death would normally be relevant and important in the present facts, whether the death was due to strangulation or due to an injury to the skull pales into insignificance considering that the death has occurred. The decision relied upon by the Addl SPP as regards discrepancy in the ocular evidence and medical evidence in STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAGIRATH reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96 and CRL.A.No.100096/2018 C/W CRL.A.No.100109/2018 110 YOGESH SINGH VS. MAHABEER SINGH reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 would not be applicable to the present case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Unknown vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2022

21) In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath & Ors.,3 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot 3 (1999) 5 SCC 96 16 be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - C P Kumar - Full Document

Ravi Kumar & Ors. vs State on 30 May, 2014

"38. The expression "medical evidence" compendiously refers to the facts stated by the doctor either in the injury report or in the post mortem report or during his oral testimony plus the opinion expressed by the doctor on the basis of the facts stated. For example, an injury on the skull or the leg is a fact recorded by the doctor. Whether the injury caused the death of the person is the opinion of the doctor. As noted in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 on the same set of facts, two doctors may have a different opinion. Therefore, the opinion of a particular doctor is not final or sacrosanct.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next