Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.51 seconds)Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mrinal Das & Ors vs State Of Tripura on 5 September, 2011
In
the case of Mrinal
Das And Others v. State of Tripura reported
in (2011)9 SCC
479, the
Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law, that
the evidence of hostile witness need not be rejected in its
entirety but may be relied on for corroboration. This is what the
Supreme Court has held in this regard:
Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2013
In
the case of Rohtash v. State of Haryana, reported
in (2012) 6 SCC 589 :
Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of A.P on 5 January, 2010
In
the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in
(2010)1 SCC 750, the
Supreme Court has held as below:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2010
In
the case of Rameshbhai
Mohanbhai Koli And Others v. State of Gujarat,
reported in (2011)11
SCC 111, the
Supreme Court has held as below:
C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010
In
C.Muniappan v. State of T.N.[(2010)9 SCC 567] this Court, after
considering all the earlier decisions on this point, summarised
the law applicable to the case of hostile witnesses as under: (SCC
pp. 596-97, paras 83-85)
State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984
It
is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be
disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sitting through
the evidence to separate truth
from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a
conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to
convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be
attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not
go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
prosecution s witness. As the mental abilities of a human being
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the
incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements
of witnesses. (Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P.[(1972)3 SCC 751,
State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony
[(1985)1 SCC 505], Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983)3 SCC 217,
State of Rajasthan v. Om
Prakash [(2007)12 SCC 381, Prithu
v. State of H.P. [(2009)11 SCC 588],
State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar [(2009)9 SCC 626 and Sate v.
Saravanan [(2008)17 SCC 587).
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
It
is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be
disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sitting through
the evidence to separate truth
from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a
conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to
convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be
attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not
go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
prosecution s witness. As the mental abilities of a human being
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the
incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements
of witnesses. (Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P.[(1972)3 SCC 751,
State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony
[(1985)1 SCC 505], Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983)3 SCC 217,
State of Rajasthan v. Om
Prakash [(2007)12 SCC 381, Prithu
v. State of H.P. [(2009)11 SCC 588],
State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar [(2009)9 SCC 626 and Sate v.
Saravanan [(2008)17 SCC 587).