Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 321 (2.31 seconds)

Sharifulla vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 July, 2003

In this case, their Lords his after referring the principles laid down in earlier decisions, namely Rahim Beg v. State of U.P (12), Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra), Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. (supra), Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Narayan Singh v. State of M.P. (supra), have held that extra judicial confession made before a stranger (PW 2), though unnatural, can be relied upon. Their Lordships held as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rajendrakumar on 20 January, 2010

Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330, for the proposition that when the witness has fully supported the case of prosecution in all material particulars, merely because he does not concur with the suggestion made by the Public Prosecutor on a single point is not sufficient to permit the witness to be cross-examined by the prosecution. It was, accordingly, submitted that as rightly noted by the trial Court, the respondent-witness has supported the prosecution case insofar as the genuineness or otherwise of the currency notes is concerned. Merely because he does not support the prosecution case as regards his presence at the time of the raid, is no reason to declare him hostile.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Ajim Yusufbhai Suryamemon vs State Of ... on 7 April, 2017

Mr. Poojari has drawn our attention to the relevant paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the decision in Kathi Bharat Vajsur(supra) Nos.20 and 23 of Page 64 of 67 HC-NIC Page 64 of 67 Created On Sat Apr 08 01:13:07 IST 2017 R/CR.A/280/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the decision in Gura Singh (supra) to indicate that the blood has been found on the knife which has been discovered and therefore, no benefit is to be granted to the accused. We are afraid that if this principle is applied as a straight-jacket formula, then the effect of the evidence emerging in the case on hand will become redundant. In fact, the material available in the present case on hand has clearly ousted the version of the prosecution as not only the medical officer has, in no uncertain terms, opined that the muddamal which has been recovered/discovered is not used in inflicting blow but at the same time the incriminating circumstance of finding blood stain on the knife has not been put to the accused in the further statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the background of present facts on hand is different from that of the aforesaid two decisions and therefore, those decisions appear to be of no assistance to learned APP.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Thankapandi vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2024

In Gura Singh case [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] a two-Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an extra-judicial confession and the question whether the same could be made a basis for recording the conviction against the accused. This Court held that despite the inherent weakness of an extra-judicial confession as a piece of evidence, the same cannot be ignored if it is otherwise shown to be voluntary and truthful. This Court also held that extra-judicial confession cannot always be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration of such evidence is required only as a measure of abundant caution. If the court found the witness to whom confession was made to be trustworthy and that the confession was true and voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. More 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 16 importantly, the Court declared that courts cannot start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is always suspect or a weak type of evidence but it would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak about such a confession and whether the confession is voluntary and truthful.

Mohd. Shahid Khan @ Raja vs State on 10 March, 2014

In the case of Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205, the prosecution proved beyond doubt the recovery of the blood stained 'chadar' (sheet) belonging to the Appellant and kassi, the weapon of offence on the basis of the voluntary disclosure statement made by the accused, who was charged with the offence of patricide and had allegedly smashed the skull of the deceased with the kassi. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the making of the disclosure statements by the Appellant and the consequent recovery of the Crl. A. No. 1345/2011 Page 32 of 47 weapon of offence and 'chadar' at his instance. The serologist and chemical examiner found the 'chadar' (sheet) and other items to be stained with human blood. However, the origin of blood stains on the kassi and other items like the shoes of the accused could not be determined on account of disintegration with the lapse of time.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 18 - S Gupta - Full Document

Omprakash vs State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2018

In Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001 KHC 1019), the Apex Court held that merely for the reason that a witness is declared hostile, it cannot be stated that the entire evidence is washed out from the record. It is for the court to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands discredited or still can be believed in regard to any part of the testimony. Taking into account the fact that A3 had admitted to PW41 about his involvement in the crime, followed by recovery of the knife under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act proves the involvement of the 3 rd accused. We don't see any reason why a different view should be taken in the matter.
Kerala High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next