Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)
Harjeet Singh vs State on 29 November, 2024 cites

Harjeet Singh @ Seeta vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 December, 2001

2024.11.29 16:25:33 Harjeet Singh vs State 11 of 21 +0530 relevant. Thus, every omission is not a contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it satisfies the test laid down in the explanation under Section 162. Therefore, when an omission becomes a contradiction, the procedure provided in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 162 must be followed for contradicting witnesses in the cross- examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 March, 2023

"This Court, in the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, has considered the minor contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in criminal trial. It is held in the said judgment that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of Digitally the witnesses. Relevant portion of Para 42 of the judgment reads as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 43 - Cited by 7 - A Bose - Full Document
1