Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohar Rai & Bharath Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 22 March, 1968
"In Mohar Rai case [Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 : 1968 Cri LJ 1479] it is made clear that failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Lakshmi Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 10 September, 1976
Likewise in Lakshmi Singh case [Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671] also it is observed that any non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case."
Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 24 August, 1998
23. The question whether the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and failure to explain injuries on the accused would construe that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence, has been in controversy before this Court in a catena of decisions. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1998) 7 SCC 365 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1630] (at SCC p. 366, para 3) referred to another three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378] , SCC at p. 202, para 10, which held as under:
Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 1990
23. The question whether the prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence and failure to explain injuries on the accused would construe that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence, has been in controversy before this Court in a catena of decisions. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1998) 7 SCC 365 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1630] (at SCC p. 366, para 3) referred to another three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378] , SCC at p. 202, para 10, which held as under:
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
In Khema and others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2022 SC 3765, the Supreme Court has reiterated the previous judgment of the Court in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981, wherein the Court emphasized that well established rule of law is that the Court is concerned with quality and not the quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category the court may acquit or convict on the testimony of a single witness, if it found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category the court has equally no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.............
S. Sundara Kumar vs State Represented By The Inspector Of ... on 13 January, 2021
33. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that where the genesis of crime is suppressed and the injuries on accused are not explained the evidence of prosecution witnesses relating to the incident cannot be treated as true or at any rate not wholly true and cannot be relied upon to convict an accused. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Kumar Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, 2018 (6) JT 85, wherein the Court observed as under in para 27 to 29 of the report, which is reproduced hereinafter:-