Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)
Rafi Ahmed & Anr. vs State on 17 April, 2009 cites

Rishi Pal & Co. vs State Of H.P. And Ors. on 29 April, 1998

In support of the submission that the absence of the blood trail makes the testimony of Mumtaz Ahmad PW-2, susceptible, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this court reported as Rishi Pal v State 1994 (1) C.C. Cases 509 (HC); (ii) Mumtaz Ahmad PW-2, had deposed that he, along with Iftiquar Ahmad PW-8, the father of the deceased, had removed the deceased to the hospital. Learned counsel urged that this testimony is not supported by the MLC Ex.PW-5/B of the deceased wherein there is no mention of the names of Mumtaz Ahmad or Iftiquar Ahmad as the persons who had brought the deceased to the hospital; (iii) had Mumtaz Ahmad PW-2, been an eye-witness to the incident as claimed by him, the police officers CRL.A.948-49/05 Page 26 of 46 necessarily would have involved him in the investigation conducted at the spot as he would have provided them with the necessary details of the incident whereas the fact that Mumtaz Ahmad had not deposed a word about the investigation conducted at the spot by the police officers evidences that he had not participated in the investigation conducted at the spot which, according to the learned counsel raises serious doubts on his claim of being an eye-witness to the incident; (iv) there is a serious contradiction in the evidence of Mumtaz Ahmad PW-2, regarding the manner in which the deceased was held by the appellant Sayeed Ahmad at the time of the incident; inasmuch as, learned counsel urged that Mumtaz Ahmad had firstly deposed that appellant Sayeed Ahmad had caught hold of the deceased whereas he had later deposed that the appellant had caught of the hand of the deceased; (v) there is a contradiction between the evidence of Mumtaz Ahmad PW-2 and Khursheeda Begum PW-3, the mother of the deceased, regarding the position of the deceased and his mother at the time of the incident; inasmuch as Mumtaz Ahmad had deposed that the deceased was walking ahead of his mother whereas Khursheeda Begum had deposed that she was walking ahead of the deceased at the time of the incident (vi) the incident had happened in a flash of the moment and therefore Mumtaz Ahmad PW-2, who claimed to be present few yards away from CRL.A.948-49/05 Page 27 of 46 the place of the occurrence could not have witnessed the incident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Piara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 1969

38. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra) in no way help the appellants. In the said case, there was a difference in the opinion of the two doctors regarding the weapon by which an injury was caused on the person of the deceased. One doctor had deposed that the injury in question was caused by a fire- arm which supported the evidence of the eye-witnesses while another doctor opined that the injury in question was not caused by a firearm. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution case mainly on the ground that the ocular evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence. Holding that it was not a case of ocular evidence being totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, but was a case where there was some doubt in the opinion of the experts about the weapon of offence, it was held that and that where there is a conflict between the opinion of the two experts, the court should normally accept the evidence of the expert whose evidence is corroborated by direct evidence, the Supreme Court convicted the accused persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 228 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Hakam Singh on 31 August, 2005

In the decision reported as State of Punjab v Hakam Singh AIR 2005 SC 3759 it was held by the Supreme that whenever there is a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony; normally ocular testimony should be preferred unless it belies fundamental facts. The decision guides us that unless the conflict between medical and ocular evidence is of CRL.A.948-49/05 Page 20 of 46 irreconcilable opposites, credence and preference has to be given to ocular evidence subject to the caution that the ocular testimony should not be in conflict with fundamental facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 46 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 1993

In support of the contention that the evidence of Khursheeda Begum should not be believed on account of her unnatural conduct, the counsel placed reliance upon the decisions reported as Bhimappa Junapa Nagaur v State of Karnataka 1993 (2) CC Cases 72 (SC) and Raj Kumar v State 1997 (2) CC Cases 291; (ii) the position of Khursheeda Begum PW-3, is not shown in the site plan Ex.PW- 14/A which fact makes her presence at the spot doubtful; (iii) the incident had happened in a flash makes improbable the CRL.A.948-49/05 Page 33 of 46 testimony of Khursheeda Begum PW-3, that she had turned back and witnessed the incident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next