Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.66 seconds)
State vs . Raja Nepali on 14 July, 2022 cites

Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 October, 2016

21. Even though, Ld. Counsel for defence has not made any argument regarding the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, yet perusal of the file would reveal certain contradictions which shall be dealt with. It has been noticed that the there are certain discrepancies pertaining to the time at which the police officials reached the spot i.e. bank in question and time when the police received the information regarding the present offence. Further, there is FIR no. 439/21 PS Madhu Vihar State vs Raja Nepali Page 12 of 17 minor variation regarding the place where the statement of the complainant/bank branch manager was recorded as PW-1 has deposed that he was called by the police at the police station where his statement was recorded whereas, PW-2 and PW-3 had deposed that the complaint was given by the complainant to IO at the spot after which the FIR was registered. It is trite law that the court is required to sift the chaff from the grain to ascertain the truth. The court can always ignore minor variations and trivial contradictions and omissions if there is otherwise sufficient evidence on record pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Reliance is placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in [(2016) 10 SCC 537], which are as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 168 - A K Goel - Full Document

Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs State Of Orissa on 10 October, 2002

or "interested" witness may lead to failure of justice. It is well known that principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no general acceptability [Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, pp. 392-93, para 15 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 32] . On the same evidence, some accused persons may be acquitted while others may be convicted, depending upon the nature of the offence. The court can differentiate the accused who is acquitted from those who are convicted. A witness may be untruthful in some aspects but the other part of the evidence may be worthy of acceptance. Discrepancies may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition such as shock at the time of occurrence and as such the normal discrepancy does not affect the credibility of a witness."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 430 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1