Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.69 seconds)
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2010 cites

Mehbub Samsuddin Malek And Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 23 August, 1996

21) The appellants herein have denied the factum of recoveries at their instance is a false plea inasmuch as the recoveries have been duly proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence which has not been shaken by the defence. A false plea taken by an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. [Vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Mehbub Samsuddin Malek & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 10 SCC 480].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Syad Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 1979

8) It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (vide Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad 10 Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 525 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Others vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2006

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543; Gagan Kanojia and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraian Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 320 and Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 391 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Sohrab S/O Belinayata & Anr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 1972

71. 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 sifting 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 and Anr. v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753; State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, AIR 2007 SC 2257; Prithu @ Prithi Chand and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 588; State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 626 and State v. Saravanan and Anr, AIR 2009 SC 151)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 199 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next