Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.90 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ch. Razik Ram vs Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan And Ors. on 11 February, 1975
AIR 1975 SC 667
(Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. J.S.Chouhan and others) where it was held
by their Lordship that the witness not deposing to same facts
truthfully - no ground for rejecting whole body of his testimony.
The grin in his evidence can be shifted from the chaff in the
light of the other evidence and the surrounding circumstances
and probabilities of the case`. So basing upon both the decisions
it can found that even there are some minor contradictions,
omissions and improvements available in the statement of the
witnesses, that do not expunge the entire case of the
prosecution as well as eventhough one witness has been turned
hostile, what are his supportive versions to the prosecution case
are required to be believed by the court.
S. Jeevanantham vs State Through Inspector Of Police, Tn on 21 April, 2004
21. The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on a
citation reported in 2004 Crl.LJ 3834 (S.Jeevanantham vs. The
State through Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu) about the fact
that if the Investigating Officer played duel role of complainant
and the I.O. his entire statement could not be thrown away.
Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2009
The learned Public
28 SC 602/2012
Prosecutor has also relied on a citation reported in 2009(2)
Crimes 80(SC) (Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and others vs. State of
Karnataka) wherein it is held that (a)Criminal Trial - There is no
legal bar in the complainant undertaking investigation.
State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu on 12 November, 1980
He has also relied on a citation reported
in 1981 Crl.LJ 9 (Supreme Court) (State of Maharashtra vs.
Krishnamurthy Laxmipati Naidu) with regard to the principles
26 SC 602/2012
that minor variation in examination in chief and cross examination
does not affect the credibility of the witness.
B.T. Jayaram vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2006
In reply argument the learned Public Prosecutor has
cited a decision reported in 2003 Crl.LJ 1422 (Jayaram vs. State
of Karnataka) wherein it held that; the investigation of the case
by person (police officer) Not vitiated. On the same principles
the learned Public Prosecutor as cited a decision reported in
2010 (3) Crimes 682 (Del) where it was held that; it is not proper
and permissible to doubt the evidence of Police Officer. Judicial
approach must not be to distrust and suspect their evidence on
oath without good and sufficient ground thereof.` Accordingly
the learned Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of the
court that the evidence of PW. 1 is definitely not fatal,
eventhough he had played a duel role of complainant as well as
Investigating Officer.
State Of Karnataka, Paper Town Police ... vs Sheshadri Shetty And Ors. on 14 October, 2003
LJ page
377 (State of Karnataka vs. Sheshadri Shetty and others) and
1997 SCC (Cri) 267 (Umashankar Sitani vs. Commissioner of
25 SC 602/2012
Police, Delhi and others), about the fact that the complainant
cannot be treated as Investigating Officer. If, that is so, his
over all statement is to be disbelieved. Accordingly the learned
counsel prays to acquit the accused.