Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.47 seconds)
Upputala Venkateswarlu And Others vs Vs on 30 March, 2016 cites

Ramanand Yadav vs Prabhu Nath Jha And Ors on 31 October, 2003

In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others , the Supreme Court held that over-dependence on the opinion of medical witness to checkmate the direct testimony given by an eyewitness is not a safe modus adoptable in criminal cases, that it is axiomatic that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitnesses only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eyewitness' version to be true and that a doctor usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or post-mortem features which he noticed in the medical report may express his views one way or the other depending upon the manner in which the question was asked, but the answers given by the medical witness to such questions need not become the last word on such possibilities. The Supreme Court further held that after all, the doctor gives only his opinion regarding such questions, but to discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 171 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nankaunoo vs State Of Up on 19 January, 2016

In one of the recent judgments, i.e., Nankaunoo v. State of U.P. , a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that intention is different from motive and that it is the intention with which the act is done that makes a difference in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that having regard to the gravity of the overt acts of accused Nos.1 and 5, their intention to cause the death of the deceased or at least to cause injuries which are likely to cause the death of the deceased is quite evident and that the lower Court has committed a serious error in rendering a finding that there is no intention on the part of accused Nos.1 and 5 to cause injuries to the deceased. We need to remember that these are the appeals filed by the accused. Since they were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, there was no occasion for the prosecution to file appeal. However, in the absence of an appeal by the State, it is not proper for us to examine the correctness or otherwise of the findings rendered by the lower Court in favour of the accused. Therefore, we feel that the appeals need to be disposed of without disturbing the findings rendered by the lower Court in favour of the appellants. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the lower Court has committed a serious error in convicting accused Nos.1 and 5 for the offence under Section 302 IPC having observed that they had no intention of causing death or injuries which are likely to cause the death. As accused Nos.1 and 5 had the knowledge that the injuries are likely to cause the death of the deceased, the overt acts committed by them would squarely fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. Accordingly, they are liable to be convicted for the said offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years while confirming the sentence of fine imposed upon them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 84 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1