Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.63 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Lallan Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 14 November, 2002
No
undue importance can be attached to such discrepancies
if they do not go to the root of the matter and do not shake
the basic version of witnesses [Lallan Vs. State 1990
Cr,.L.J. 463].
Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999
77. In the case of Sukhdev Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Bihar
(2001) 89 (SCC) 86) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
that once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case
stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting
the same. If the evidence in its entirety appears to be
trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of
presence of minor variations in evidence. Relying upon an
earlier decision in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1999)
SC No.77 /07 State Vs. Lalit @ Pardeep Page 43 of 48
9 SCC 525, it was observed that there are bound to be
some discrepancies between the narration of different
witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the
contradictions are of a material dimension, the same
should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties
cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor
embellishments or variations should not render the
evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial
discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable
evidence.
N. Venkat Ramani And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 8 April, 1976
Relying upon an earlier decision in Ramani Vs.
State of M.P. ( supra), it was also observed that when an
eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for
him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can
possibly escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
successfully make his testimony totally nondiscrepant.
But courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious
a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the
SC No.77 /07 State Vs. Lalit @ Pardeep Page 44 of 48
narration of an incident either as between the evidence of
two witnesses or as between two statements of the same
witnesses is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. It
was observed that it is a common practice in trial courts
to make out contradictions from the previous statement of
a witness used for confronting him during cross
examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in
evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the
witness. No doubt section 155 of the Evidence Act
provides scope for impeachment of the credit of a witness
by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading
of the section would indicate that all inconsistent
statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the
witness.
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
In case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC
1998, it was held that in some cases the entire prosecution
cases is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the
occurrence. The general indifferent attitude of the public
in the investigation of crimes or the fact that the public are
SC No.77 /07 State Vs. Lalit @ Pardeep Page 41 of 48
generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the
courts can not be lost sight of. It is, therefore, not correct to
reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all
witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor
it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by
independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise
true and acceptable. In the case of Appabhai Vs.State of
Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, it was held that these days
people in the vicinity where the incident took place avoid to
come forward to give evidence and civilized people are in
sensitive when crime is committed even in their presence
and they withdraw both from the victim and vigilante.
Prithi Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 January, 1989
27. The MLC Ex. PW 18/A has been proved by PW18 Dr.
Anita Marak, in absence of the doctor who had prepared
the document in the casualty of Lady Harding Medical
College at 00.30 hours on 14.11.2006. There is nothing
improper in such proof by another doctor. [Prithi Chand
Vs. State 1989 Crl.