Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.07 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shyamal Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 11 July, 2012
17. Learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant argued that the presence of eye
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:49:51 :::
cria354.13
24
witnesses at the spot is doubtful, as there is
variance in the evidence of PW-1 Jayshree and PW-4
Ranjanabai in respect of description of incident
and residence of deceased Meena. Learned counsel
further argued that PW-1 Jayshree deposed in her
evidence that at the time of incident, there were
grass bundles on the head of PW-1 Jayshree, PW-4
Ranjanabai and deceased Meena, however the spot
panchnama shows that there was only one grass
bundle on the spot. It is pertinent to note that,
these are minor contradictions and discrepancies,
which does not affect the core/ substratum of the
prosecution case and therefore these
contradictions can be ignored while evaluating the
evidence of the eye witnesses. The Supreme Court
in the case of Shyamlal Ghosh vs. State of West
Bengal3, in Para 68 held thus:-
Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
State Of U.P vs Arun Kumar Gupta on 8 January, 2003
In
support of his submissions, learned counsel placed
reliance upon the exposition of law in the case of
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:49:51 :::
cria354.13
9
State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Gupta1. Therefore, he
submits that the Appeal may be allowed.