Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)

Kalthuri Mallikarjuna And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 March, 1995

It appears that for fear that he may not be disbelieved and his evidence may appear to be more reliable, Kavali Sivarmaiah PW13 has stated in the last sentence of his examination in chief that police examined him on the night also because immediately preceding the last sentence he had stated that the police had come and went back and then again came in the early hours on 17-1-1991 and examined him. We get from the evidence of the investigating officer PW17 that he had received a vague information on telephone by his informer that some murder had taken place near the village Kanuparthipadu and in order to verify the genuineness of the inforamtion he had gone to the spot. Even after interrogation nobody told him about the incident. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the case of Pattad Amarappa v. State of Karnataka (supra).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ashok Kumar on 26 November, 2008

In case Pattad Amarappa Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 2004 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia held that in their panic stricken state witnesses would not have been able to give cogent and comprehensive statements to the IO about the attack launched on them and the deceased by the assailant. For all these reasons it could not be said that the statement was not the earlier statement to be recorded. Thus it was not hit by section 162 CrPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Agustus Barla vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 22 April, 2002

8. The second question is whether this witness (P.W. 1) who is the sole eyewitness in this case, can be relied upon. Earned Counsel for the defence relied on two decisions i.e. Pattad Amarappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Karnesh Kr. Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and argued that when the witnesses were there in the house and they were not examined and they were consciously withheld, the adverse inference can be drawn.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1