Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
3.Title State vs . Rajesh Kumar on 21 July, 2012 cites

State Of Uttaranchal vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta on 10 November, 2006

PW3 HC Attar Singh, Investigating witness had deposed that on 20.06.1992 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar and joined the investigation with IO S.K. Basi and went to the Uttam Nagar terminal from where accused Rajender Kumar was arrested but the said Rajender Kumar is not present today in the Court. The accused were arrested after conducting personal search vide memo Ex. PW3/A. FIR NO. 348/92 State Vs Rajesh Kumar Page No. 4 of 18 PW4 Jugal Kishore, Fact witness had deposed that on 18.06.1992 he was running a shop of General Store next to M/s MB Agencies at 128, Raja Garden and the police came to the spot along with both the accused present in the court today who were working with the aforesaid MB Agencies. The statements of the accused were being recorded by the police and he supplied the five coldrinks (Campa Cola) to them. The police inquired regarding his acquaintance with both the persons to which he gave a affirmative reply. Thereafter he brought back the empty bottles to his shop. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 226 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984

6. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was observed as under:­ " In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 3880 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999

Relying upon an earlier decision in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525 it was observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirely. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 503 - Full Document
1   2 Next