Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.42 seconds)Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
State Of U.P vs Naresh And Ors on 8 March, 2011
In the case titled as
"State of U.P. v. Naresh", (2011) 4 SCC 324, Hon'ble
Supreme Court had observed:-
Vijay @ Chinee vs State Of M.P on 27 July, 2010
36. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the case
titled as "Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P. (2010) 8
SCC191" it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India,
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 17 of 25
"19. It is settled legal proposition that while
appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor
discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect
the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the
court to reject the evidence in its entirety.
State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash on 13 June, 2007
In State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [(2007) 12
SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 411], while dealing
with a similar issue, this Court held that : (SCC p.
384, para 12)
"12. ... Irrelevant details which do not in any way
corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be
levelled as omissions or contradictions."
State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984
In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC
505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 : AIR 1985 SC 48], this
Court laid down certain guidelines in this regard,
which require to be followed by the courts in such
cases. The Court observed as under : (SCC pp. 514-
15, para 10)
"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness,
the approach must be whether the evidence of the
witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
truth. Once that impression is formed, it is
undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the
evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out
in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the
evidence given by the witness and whether the
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the core of the case,
hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn
out of context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not going to
the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit
rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court
before whom the witness gives evidence had the
opportunity to form the opinion about the general
tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate
court which had not this benefit will have to attach
due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the
trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the
evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even
honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some
details unrelated to the main incident because power
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 18 of 25
of observation, retention and reproduction differ
with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal
duel between a rustic and refined lawyer."