Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (2.31 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sidhan And Ors. vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 6 June, 1985
38. The principles that can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions are
minor discrepancies and inconsistencies cannot give (sic) importance.
The Court has to see whether inconsistencies can go to the root of the
matter and affect the truthfulness of the witnesses while keeping in view
that discrepancies are inevitable in case of evidence of rustic and
illiterate villagers, who speak them after long lapse of time. It is also
observed in Sidhan Vs. State of Kerala (supra), that minor discrepancies
need not be taken into account by the Courts, if the evidence of the
witness is found acceptable on broad probabilities.
Krishna Mochi & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2002
37. Dealing with the aspect of contradictions, inconsistencies and
exaggeration or embellishments, hon'ble Apex Court in Kirshna Mochi
(supra) has observed as under :-
Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar And Anr. vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 1981
In Krishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, 1981 Cr.L.J. 1743 : AIR 1981 SC
1237, it was held by hon'ble Apex Court as under :-
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Ajay Kumar Gulati on 16 July, 1996
State Vs. Ajay Kumar S/o Devi Parkash, R/o 1/9681, Gali
No.6, Pratap Pura, Shahdara, Delhi.