Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.37 seconds)
41.In The Judgment Reported As Kishore ... vs State Of Himachal on 21 December, 2016 cites

Suraj Dev S/O Nankesar vs The State (Delhi Admn) [Along With Crl. ... on 11 March, 2005

46.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of very material prosecution witnesses namely PWs Ms.Asha (PW2) and Mr.Kabir Yadav (PW5) as well as Ct.Rohtash (PW3), HC Akhilesh (PW4) and SI Amarjeet (PW7) who also happen to be the most material witnesses, I am of the considered view that their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable for the prosecution. PWs Ms.Asha (PW2), Ct.Rohtash (PW3) and HC Akhilesh (PW4) are hostile. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 471 - M Sharma - Full Document

Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1976

48.In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 123 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Narender Kumar vs State(N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 25 May, 2012

from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being no forensic or other evidence as well as no direct or circumstantial evidence, then no credibility can be given to the prosecution case. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove and accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. If evidence of the material witnesses is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, their deposition does not inspire confidence regarding the veracity of the prosecution case against accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (5) LRC 137 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 368 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Sunil Rai @ Paua & Ors vs Union Territory, Chandigarh on 4 July, 2011

31.The disclosure or confessional statement of accused Mr.Bhajju @ Bachu cannot be used against him in the absence of any incriminating evidence. There is no ocular evidence of the commission of offence and the prosecution case is based entirely on subsequent circumstantial evidence which is also not proved. The extra judicial confession of an accused cannot be fastened upon the other for holding him guilty of mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Sunil Rai @Paua & Ors. V. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2011 IV AD (Cri.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 34 - A Alam - Full Document
1   2 Next