Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.40 seconds)
Bavuddin S/O Kajesab Patel vs The State Of Karnataka Through Talikoti ... on 23 December, 2020
cites
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rukia Begum vs State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2011
In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision
in Rukia Begum Vs Sate of Karnataka [AIR 2011 SC 1585],
wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed at length regarding
the appreciation of circumstantial evidence to lead an inference
of guilt of the accused and held in para 10 as under:
Murugan & Anr vs State By Pub.Prosecutor, Tamil Nadu ... on 30 September, 2008
The decisions in
Murugan, PattuRajan, Prahlad and Satish (supra) re-iterated
the well settled proposition of law. But in the present case, since
50
the prosecution failed to prove the said circumstance, reliance
cannot be placed on the same.
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai(supra), listed some of the
reasons for non attaching importance to the minor discrepancies.
But in the present case, the discussions held above discloses
that the discrepancies found in the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 6
are not minor in nature, but they are material discrepancies
which goes to the root of the matter. Strong and reasonable
suspicion arises about the evidence deposed by these witnesses.
Therefore such evidence cannot be relied on to convict the
accused.
Shivappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2008
In Shivappa and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the minor discrepancies or some improvements
would not justify rejection of the testimonies of the eye
witnesses, if they are otherwise reliable. It has also held that
some discrepancies are bound to occur because of the
sociological background of the witnesses as also the time gap
between the date of occurrence and the date on which they gave
their depositions in court.