Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999
34. My attention has also been drawn to some discrepencies in the statements of witnesses e.g. whether prosecutrix or her husband reached their house first, difference as to the exact time of commission of offence etc. Undisputedly, there is bound to be some discrepancies between the bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to discard the evidence on its entirety. Generally, the evidence is recorded after a considerable delay and it is not expected that one would give the exact narration of the fact as to what had happened on a particular day. In the present case the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel are of trivial natures and the same, in my considered view are not of much significance and the same cannot obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. I am fortified in my view by the following observations of the Apex Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (supra) :
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Baleshwar Mandal And Another vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 1997
"True, as notice above, there are lapses but the question that arises for consideration is whether any prejudice has been caused by reason of such a lapse; if the answer there is in the affirmative, obviously it will have serious impact on the trial but if in the event, however, it is in negative, no prejudice can be said to have been caused and correspondingly question of trial being vitiated would not arise. The eyewitnesses' account as available on record cannot but be termed to be trustworty and by reason therefor, the lapses stand overshadowed by the testimony of the eye witnesses. The observations above obtain support from the decision of this court in Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar (AIR 1997 SC 3471)."
State Of Haryana vs Ashok Kumar Alias Billu on 18 January, 2001
In the case in hand, the facts are entirely different than those involved in Ashok Kumar's case. That apart, in the case in hand, keeping in view the testimony of the prosecutrix which has been held to be worthy of credence, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the accused appellants by reason of lapses on the part of the Investigating Agency.
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri Narayan on 30 July, 1992
However, it need by observed that in cases involving sexual assault, the delay in reporting the matter to the police by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is well settled that the Courts cannot over- look the fact that in sexual offences delay in loding of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons, particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family
members to go to the police and complaint about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Narayan (1), wherein their lordships have observed have observed as under: