Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Md. Badaruddin Ahmed vs State Of Assam on 12 May, 1989 cites

Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959

Further in the case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., it was also held that the statement not reduced to writing cannot be contradicted and, therefore, in order to show that the statement sought to be contradicted was recorded by the police, it should be marked and exhibited. However, in the case in hand, there is nothing on the record to show that the previous statement of the witness was placed before him and that the witness was given the chance for explanation. Again, his previous statement was not marked and exhibited. Therefore, his previous statement before the police cannot be used. Hence, his evidence that when he turned back he saw accused Badaruddin lowering the gun from the chest is to be taken as his correct version.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 373 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Pangi Jogi Naik And Anr. vs The State on 15 January, 1965

15. The learned defence counsel has drawn our attention to the above statement of the Investigating Officer and submits that P.W. 4 never made his above statement before the police and that the same being his improved version cannot be relied upon. With the utmost respect to the learned defence counsel, we are unable to accept his above contention. Because, unless the particular matter or point in the previous statement sought to be contradicted is placed before the witness for explanation, the previous statement cannot be used in evidence. In other words, the drawing of the attention of the witness to his previous statement sought to be contradicted and giving of all opportunities to him for explanation are compulsory. If any authority is to be cited on this point we may conveniently refer to the case of Pangi Jogi Naik v. State .
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1