Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Kuldeep vs State Of U.P. on 27 April, 2020 cites

Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 January, 2003

In Ram Narain Popli v CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641 and Vallabhaneni Venkateshwara Rao v State of AP, 2009 (4) Supreme 363, it has been held that introduction of or addition of new story or projection of different story by prosecution adversely affects and destroys the prosecution case and it is unsafe to convict the accused and benefit of doubt should be given to accused. There is delay in lodging FIR and no attempt has been made by prosecution to explain the delay. In rape cases, it is settled law that delay in lodging FIR is not material and if the offence has been proved by cogent evidence, the same will be insignificant. In this case, three witnesses of fact including victim have not been able to prove prosecution version in a reliable and credible way and thus, the delay in lodging FIR goes to render additional ground to dislodge the prosecution case. The medical evidence adduced by prosecution is to the effect that the victim was under treatment for self inflicted injury. Thus, the medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution case and it does not rule out or improbablize the defence version that the victim fell down from roof. In this case, the facts constituting the offence of attempt to culpable homicide and rape are so intermixed and inter-connected that one of them cannot be isolated from other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 369 - Full Document

Vallabhaneni Venkateswara Rao vs State Of A.P on 8 May, 2009

In Ram Narain Popli v CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641 and Vallabhaneni Venkateshwara Rao v State of AP, 2009 (4) Supreme 363, it has been held that introduction of or addition of new story or projection of different story by prosecution adversely affects and destroys the prosecution case and it is unsafe to convict the accused and benefit of doubt should be given to accused. There is delay in lodging FIR and no attempt has been made by prosecution to explain the delay. In rape cases, it is settled law that delay in lodging FIR is not material and if the offence has been proved by cogent evidence, the same will be insignificant. In this case, three witnesses of fact including victim have not been able to prove prosecution version in a reliable and credible way and thus, the delay in lodging FIR goes to render additional ground to dislodge the prosecution case. The medical evidence adduced by prosecution is to the effect that the victim was under treatment for self inflicted injury. Thus, the medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution case and it does not rule out or improbablize the defence version that the victim fell down from roof. In this case, the facts constituting the offence of attempt to culpable homicide and rape are so intermixed and inter-connected that one of them cannot be isolated from other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Niranjan Prasad & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1996

31. Niranjan Prasad v State of MP, 1996 CrLJ 1987 (SC), was a murder trial, testimony of eye-witnesses was that the deceased and injured were assaulted with sharp cutting weapons but their testimony was not corroborated with medical evidence showing deceased having been injured by blunt object (weapon) only. Post-Mortem Report showing that the deceased had no injury which could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon and, indeed, he had sustained only one injury which could be caused, according to the doctor by a blunt weapon only. Keeping in view the sharp contrast in between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document
1