Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1976
18. No doubt, if there are large number of contradictions in the evidence given before the Court and the previous statement on vital points it will be unsafe to rely on such evidence. It has been held in Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra which is also a decision relied on by the Id defence counsel, that where the story narrated by a 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 the evidence not only in matters of detail but also on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on such evidence.
Habil Mia And Anr. vs State Of Tripura on 30 January, 1996
A Id. Single Bench of this Court in Habib Mia and Ors. v. State of Tripura (1996) 3 GLR 352 1997 (1) GLT 98 relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam Narendra v. State of Orissa and Sarenjit Singh v. State of Punjab , has held that so long as the errors in FIR do not entirely destroy the prosecution case, the same cannot render the evidence of eye witness unreliable.