Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Kapildeo Mandal & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2007 cites

Ramanand Yadav vs Prabhu Nath Jha And Ors on 31 October, 2003

11. It is now well settled by series of decisions of this Court that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eye-witness has to get primacy as medical evidence is basically opinionative. [See Mange v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349 (conviction based on sole testimony of eye-witness); State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 302 (in para 24); and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors.,(2003) 12 SCC 606 (in para 17)]. But when the court finds inconsistency in the evidence given by the eye-witnesses which is totally inconsistent to that given by the medical experts, then evidence is appreciated in different perspective by the courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 171 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Mange vs State Of Haryana on 17 January, 1979

11. It is now well settled by series of decisions of this Court that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eye-witness has to get primacy as medical evidence is basically opinionative. [See Mange v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349 (conviction based on sole testimony of eye-witness); State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 302 (in para 24); and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors.,(2003) 12 SCC 606 (in para 17)]. But when the court finds inconsistency in the evidence given by the eye-witnesses which is totally inconsistent to that given by the medical experts, then evidence is appreciated in different perspective by the courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 22 - S M Ali - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Krishna Gopal & Anr on 12 August, 1988

11. It is now well settled by series of decisions of this Court that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eye-witness has to get primacy as medical evidence is basically opinionative. [See Mange v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349 (conviction based on sole testimony of eye-witness); State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 302 (in para 24); and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors.,(2003) 12 SCC 606 (in para 17)]. But when the court finds inconsistency in the evidence given by the eye-witnesses which is totally inconsistent to that given by the medical experts, then evidence is appreciated in different perspective by the courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 381 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next