Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)
Nimai Samal vs State Of Orissa on 14 April, 1988 cites

Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959

7. Coming to the question as to how far accused Nimai is the assailant or not, we have the evidence of P. W. 1. She is the sister of the deceased and according to her evidence while she was passing by the house of accused Nimai, who heard some sound of assault and when she peeped through the hole of the entrance door, she found accused Nimai having a sword and accused Basanta having a Tangi and further she saw accused Niami pushing the sword on the left side of the head of the deceased and accused Basanta was standing near the deceased. She could also notice that blood was flowing. Thereafter she came running to her house and woke up her father Jhulan Prasad and informed him about the assault committed by the accused persons. When she saw the assault being committed, she of course could not know that it was her brother Prafull who was being assaulted. The comment of the defence so far as the evidence of P.W. 1 is concerned is that the witness had not stated in her earlier version under Section 161, Criminal P. C. to the police that Nimai was pushing a sword at the head of the deceased though she had said that Nimai was holding a sword. She has been confronted with that part of her earlier version and from the evidence of the Investigating Officer also that omission has been elicited. But in our opinion, the said omission would not be a material omission amounting to contradiction within the meaning of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. and, therefore, such an omission will not justify a finding by a Court that the witness is a self-contained liar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 373 - B P Sinha - Full Document

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

Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, we are not in a position to discard the evidence of P.W. 1 on account of the alleged omission from her earlier version to the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Criminal P. C. The next ground of attack so far as the evidence of P.W. 1 is concerned is that she is a relation of the deceased being his sister and, therefore, her evidence should be discarded outright.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1007 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Ramratan And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 1961

In this connection reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramratan v. State of Rajasthan as well as on two decisions of this Court, short-notes of which have been reported in (1986) 62 Cut LT (Short Notes) 84 (Kangali Swain v. State)'and (1987) 63 Cut LT (Short Notes) 39 : 1986 Cri LJ 1917 (Kuntala Misra v. State of Orissa). We are not prepared to lay down the law as contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 32 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957

....A confession of a crime by a person, who has perpetrated it, is usually the outcome of penitence and remorse and in normal circumstances is the best evidence against the maker. The question has very often arisen whether a retracted confession may form the basis of conviction is believed to be true and voluntarily made. For the purpose of arriving at this conclusion the court has to take into consideration not only the reasons given for making the confession or retracting it but the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the same. It may be remarked that there can be no absolute rule that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated materially. It was laid down in certain cases one such being In re Kesava Pillai ILR 53 Mad 160 : AIR 1929 Mad 837 : 1930 (31) Cri LJ 768 that if the reasons given by an accused person for retracting a confession are on the face of them false, the confession may be acted upon as it stands and without any corroboration. But the view taken by this Court on more occasions than one is that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - P G Menon - Full Document

Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 September, 1956

We are quite conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has recorded an order of acquittal so far as the charge under Section 302, Penal Code, is concerned and we are also quite alive to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the power of the High Court in interfering with an order of acquittal. But in our opinion, the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for recording an order of acquittal are wholly unsustainable. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms that there is no difference between the ambit of an appeal from a conviction and that of an appeal against acquittal and the procedure for dealing with the two kinds of appeals is identical and the powers of the appellate court in disposing of the appeals are in essence the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 77 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next