Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Nasar Ali vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 14 February, 1957
It is merely a rule
of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony
may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The
doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a
SC no. 27/14 Page 9 of 16
10
court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what
may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar
Ali v. State of U.P AIR 1957 SC 366.)"
Rehmat vs The State Haryana on 3 September, 1996
14 The accused has relied upon the case of Rehmat Vs. The State of
Haryana 1996 (3) Crimes 238 (SC). The said case is
distinguishable. In that case, the prosecution did not explain 13
injuries on the accused out of which seven were lacerated wounds.
That fact, constrained the court to give a finding that truthful
version of the incident was not being put forth and therefore, non-
disclosure of name of the accused to the doctor was considered as
an additional ground for disbelieving the case of prosecution.
Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr vs State Of Assam on 16 January, 2007
16 Accused has also relied upon the case of Shri Bishnu Vs. The
State 1996 JCC 469 High Court of Delhi, which case is also
distinguishable. In that case, the place of injury was found doubtful
and the description of knife was not available and therefore, it was
observed that it cannot be said that the appellant intended to kill
the injured.
Jiten Besra vs State Of West Bengal on 10 March, 2010
17 Accused has also relied upon the case of Jiten Besra Vs. State of
West Bengal 2010 [2] JCC 922 SC, which was a case based on
circumstantial evidence whereas present case is based on the
testimony of an injured witness PW1 Smt. Asha. Therefore, that
case is also distinguishable.
State vs Parkha Ram Suri & Ors. on 5 July, 2011
18 Accused has also relied upon the case of State Vs. Parkha Ram
Suri & Ors. 2011 [3] JCC 2094 High Court of Delhi, which was
as a case of fatal accident and wherein it was observed that non-
examination of material witnesses should lead to drawing of
adverse inference against prosecution. In the present matter, the
complainant herself was the witness to the incident and she has
been examined. There is no other eye witness to the incident,
therefore, accused cannot claim that material witnesses were not
examined.
Mano Dutt & Anr vs State Of U.P on 29 February, 2012
7.2 In the case of Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79, it is
held as follows in para 30;
Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011
21 Similarly the case of Krishan Kumar Vs. State 2014 [4] JCC 2388
High Court of Delhi, relied upon by the accused, which was a
case of self-contradictory statement in a case of rape, which is not
a situation before this court, in this case.