Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)
Ram Dass vs State on 8 April, 2013 cites

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983

85. 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 v.State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819 : AIR 1972 SC 2020] , State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 : AIR 1985 SC 48] , Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728 : AIR 1983 SC 753] , State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [(2007) 12 SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 411 : AIR 2007 SC 2257] , Prithu v. State of H.P.[(2009) 11 SCC 588 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1502] , State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar[(2009) 9 SCC 626 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1007 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash on 13 June, 2007

85. 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 v.State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819 : AIR 1972 SC 2020] , State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 : AIR 1985 SC 48] , Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728 : AIR 1983 SC 753] , State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [(2007) 12 SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 411 : AIR 2007 SC 2257] , Prithu v. State of H.P.[(2009) 11 SCC 588 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1502] , State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar[(2009) 9 SCC 626 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 59 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 August, 2012

Similarly, reliance placed upon Rai Sandeep@ Deepu versus State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 2486/2009 decided by the Supreme Court on 7th August, 2012) is misconceived. In the said case, it was noticed that the prosecutrix had taken u-turn in her cross-examination and had gone on to say that she did not know the accused prior to the incident and had also stated certain other exculpating facts. Keeping in view the facts of the said case, observations were made in paragraph 15 of the said judgment wherein it has been observed that truthfulness of the statement made by witness is an important circumstance. Statement of the witness should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution, qua the accused, and the witness should be able to withstand the cross-examination and then only it can be relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 465 - Full Document
1   2 Next