Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014 cites

Sukhwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 1995

"18. As far as Dr O.P. Poddar is concerned, he was only tendered for cross-examination without his being examined-in-chief. Though, Dr O.P. Poddar was not examined-in-chief, this procedure of tendering a witness for cross-examination is not warranted by law. This Court in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 367 held that permitting the prosecution to tender a witness for cross-examination only would be wrong and "the effect of their being tendered only for cross-examination amounts to the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the trial". In the present case, however, non-examination of Dr O.P. Poddar is not very material because the post-mortem report coupled with the testimonies of Dr K.C. Jain PW 1 and Dr J.L. Bhutani PW 9 were sufficient to enable the courts to come to the conclusion about the cause of death."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 105 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992

21. We are of the view that, under Section 313 statement, if the accused admits that, from the evidence of various witnesses, four persons sustained severe bullet injuries by the firing by the accused and his associates, that admission of guilt in Section 313 statement cannot be brushed aside. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another (1992) 3 SCC 700 held that since no oath is administered to the accused, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC will not be evidence stricto sensu and the accused, of course, shall not render himself liable to punishment merely on the basis of answers given while he was being examined under Section 313 CrPC. But, Sub-section (4) says that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 268 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Krishnan And Anr vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 1996

27. An accused has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". This Court in Krishnan and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2003) 7 SCC 56, held that the doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth and to constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 13 September, 2002

This Court in Dana Yadav alias Dahu (supra) has examined the points on the law at great length and held that the evidence of identification of an accused in Court by a witness is substantive evidence, whereas identification in Test Identification Parade is, though a primary evidence, but not substantive one and the same can be used only to corroborate the identification of the accused by witness in the Court. So far as the present case is concerned, PW10 and PW13 have identified the accused in open Court which is the substantive piece of evidence and such identification by the eye-witnesses has not been shaken or contradicted. The trial Court examined in detail the oral evidence tendered by those witnesses, which was accepted by the High Court and we find no error in the appreciation of the evidence tendered by those witnesses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 267 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1