Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
"Undoubtedly, this was a case where murder and robbery are proved to
have been the integral parts of one and the same transaction. As held by us
in Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka [(1983) 2 SCC 330 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 447] in somewhat similar circumstances where the servant betraying
the trust of his employer strangulated the mistress of the house and
decamped with her gold and silver ornaments which were later recovered,
the presumption arising under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 is that not only the accused if their complicity is proved committed
the murder of the deceased Bhagwat Dayal and his wife Ramwati Devi but
Crl.A.322/2011 Page 11
also committed robbery of the gold and silver ornaments which formed part
of the same transaction."
Namdeo vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 March, 2007
17. The first one to see the deceased was Dinesh Pal. The appellant‟s main
argument is that the most crucial witness was Dinesh Pal, the driver of PW-1; he
was not examined during trial. PW-1 stated in his deposition that Dinesh‟s
statement was recorded after the police recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr. PC. The Trial Court record reveals that Dinesh‟s statement was recorded; his
name was also reflected in the list of witnesses. However, the list also scored off
his name, with the remark "Died". It is no doubt a settled proposition that the
prosecution has to examine all the material witnesses, and not merely those who
Crl.A.322/2011 Page 8
further its case. At the same time, it is the quality, rather than the quantity of
evidence which is material in a criminal trial. Therefore, a finding of guilt can be
sustained even on the basis of ocular testimony of a single eyewitness (Ref.
Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614; Sunil Kumar v. State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,(2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 14 SCC 150; and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010
SC 3638).
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2010
17. The first one to see the deceased was Dinesh Pal. The appellant‟s main
argument is that the most crucial witness was Dinesh Pal, the driver of PW-1; he
was not examined during trial. PW-1 stated in his deposition that Dinesh‟s
statement was recorded after the police recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr. PC. The Trial Court record reveals that Dinesh‟s statement was recorded; his
name was also reflected in the list of witnesses. However, the list also scored off
his name, with the remark "Died". It is no doubt a settled proposition that the
prosecution has to examine all the material witnesses, and not merely those who
Crl.A.322/2011 Page 8
further its case. At the same time, it is the quality, rather than the quantity of
evidence which is material in a criminal trial. Therefore, a finding of guilt can be
sustained even on the basis of ocular testimony of a single eyewitness (Ref.
Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614; Sunil Kumar v. State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,(2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 14 SCC 150; and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010
SC 3638).
Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamar & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 1997
18. It is important to also see, in this context that the testimony of the witness
which the Court relies on to rest a conviction, should be credible and trustworthy
(Ref. Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamar And Another, Appellants V. State Of
Karnataka 1997 (10) SCC 197, where it was held that):
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
17. The first one to see the deceased was Dinesh Pal. The appellant‟s main
argument is that the most crucial witness was Dinesh Pal, the driver of PW-1; he
was not examined during trial. PW-1 stated in his deposition that Dinesh‟s
statement was recorded after the police recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr. PC. The Trial Court record reveals that Dinesh‟s statement was recorded; his
name was also reflected in the list of witnesses. However, the list also scored off
his name, with the remark "Died". It is no doubt a settled proposition that the
prosecution has to examine all the material witnesses, and not merely those who
Crl.A.322/2011 Page 8
further its case. At the same time, it is the quality, rather than the quantity of
evidence which is material in a criminal trial. Therefore, a finding of guilt can be
sustained even on the basis of ocular testimony of a single eyewitness (Ref.
Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614; Sunil Kumar v. State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,(2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 14 SCC 150; and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010
SC 3638).
State Of U.P. vs Sukhbasi And Ors. on 10 May, 1985
Similarly, where the accused had taken away valuables after committing murder,
and the stolen articles were recovered, the Court held that the presumption under
Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act had to be drawn, in State of UP v Sukhbasi
AIR 1985 SC 1224, in the following observations: