Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Bur Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2008
It is also held in case titled as
Bur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 2008 94) R.C.R. (Criminal)
834: 2008 96) R.A.J. 197 that :
"Falsity of particular material witness of material
particular would not ruit it from the beginning to end.
The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no
application in India and the witnesses cannot be
branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has
this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law.
It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is
that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and
not that it must be discarded. The doctrine merely
involves the question of weight of evidence which a
Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it
is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of
evidence".
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Kanda Gopaludu on 27 September, 2005
18. It was held in a case titled as State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Kanda Gopaludu 2005 (4) Cri.C.C. 711: 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 3616
that :
"Very discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot
be treated as fatal to prosecution case. The discrepancy
which is not fatal to the prosecution does not create any
infirmity. The incident had taken place on 24.01.1992
and PW2 was examined on 22.01.1996 after almost four
years. Human memories are apt to blur with the passage
of time. After lapse of almost four years, it cannot be
expected that a witness can depose with mathematical
precision."
State Of U.P vs Atul Singh Etc. Etc on 8 May, 2009
In State of U.P. Vs. Atul Singh etc. AIR
2009 SC 2713, it was observed;
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 255 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981
14. It is held in the case titled as Bur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab 2008 994) R.C.R. (Criminal) 834: 2008 (96) R.A.J. 197
that :
"As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan V. Smt.
Kalki and Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1390), normal discrepancies
in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of
Page No. 6 of 14
FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji
State Vs. Krishan Gopal
observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror
at the time of occurrence and those are always there,
however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material
discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not
expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the
category to which a discrepancy may be categorized.