Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Arokiyaraj vs The State
cites
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Lekh Raj And Anr on 2 November, 1999
9 It is true that there are some minor discrepancies in the narration of events by P.Ws.1 to 3. However, they are so insignificant that they do not, in any way, destroy the basic fabric of the case. At this juncture, it may be relevant to cite the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj and another [(2000) 1 SCC 247]:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jagdish vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 1981
In Jagdish v. State of M.P.[1981 Supp SCC 40 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 676] this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions.
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981
This Court again in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593] held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.
1