Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.11 seconds)
State vs Geeta Devi on 27 September, 2025 cites

Lokesh Gupta And Another vs Sunita Dewangan And Others 106 ... on 28 November, 2017

33. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: "(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot SHARAD be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If GUPTA there be any exaggeration or immaterial Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 17 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:25:44 +0530 embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 115 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Sharad Kumar Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 Wps/1743/2020 ... on 16 March, 2020

35. As regards the argument that while PW-2 stated that the police officials had seized the namkeen and later on volunteered that the namkeen alongwith the jar were seized by the police officials, as per record, the namkeen was never seized and only the broken pieces of the glass jar were seized during investigation of this case and PW-5 stated that the namkeen was not seized from the spot. In this context, the prosecution has been able to establish seizure of pieces of glass jar from the spot. Some discrepancies are to be expected in the testimony of witnesses, with passage of time. The discrepancy pointed out by SHARAD GUPTA the Ld. Counsel for the accused is at the most a minor Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Geeta Devi GUPTA FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 14 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:25:24 +0530 discrepancy which does not affect the broad features of the prosecution version.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Anil Gupta vs Geeta Devi on 31 October, 2023

46. As regards the argument that PW-2 in his complaint Ex.PW2/A did not assert that PW-8 was present at their house, it is a matter of record that PW-2 did not disclose regarding presence of PW-8 in the shop in the initial complaint, however, during course of cross-examination of PW-2, his attention was not drawn to the said fact and he was not given an opportunity to explain regarding his omission to state regarding presence of SHARAD PW-8 at the spot. Furthermore, merely because PW-2 failed to GUPTA depose regarding presence of PW-8 at the spot in Ex.PW2/A, Digitally signed would not by itself falsify the presence of PW-8 at the spot. This by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 20 of 23 17:26:04 +0530 argument is thus liable to be rejected.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983

In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 680, Hari SHARAD Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) 4 SCC 551), Leela Ram (Dead) GUPTA through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 State Vs. Geeta Devi 17:25:17 +0530 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 13 of 23 (Criminal) 588, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2020 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1007 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Kathi Bharat Vajsur & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2012

Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 5 SCC 724 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 740], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546], Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] and Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 5 SCC 100 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 961]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 121 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1   2 Next