Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Poolin Haldar vs The State on 25 September, 1995 cites

Balaka Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 1975

"It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not been accepted by our Courts. While assessing evidence Courts try to separate the grain from the chaff and it is only where truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed that it is impossible to separate them that the entire statement of a witness is rejected (See para 8 of Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab). Here this sifting is possible."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 203 - S M Ali - Full Document

Sheikh Ishaque And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 1995

In the case of Sheikh Ishaque v. State of Bihar, reported in 1995 Cri LJ 2682, the Apex Court held that when the testimony of the first informant on whose statemment formal F.I.R. was registered, was reliable and corroborated by other materials on record, the same cannot be discredited on account of mere acquittal of some of the accused nominated by him as being present along with convicted accused at the time of occurrence. P.W. 19 is the Investigating Officer. He also supported the evidence of P.W. 11. He made search of and seizure in the house of the accused. The blue coloured under-wear which the appellant was wearing at the time of commission of the offence had been identified by P.W. 10, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9. The said Mat-Ext. III was identified by other witnesses also. The report of the Serologist proved that the same contained human blood stains. It is true, as was - submitted by Mr. Mondal, that the Seriologist could not state as regards presence of human blood in the Ballam and other materials seized by P.W. 19 because of disintegration, but only because the prosecution has not been able to prove existence of human blood in the weapon of offence and on the earth and grass seized, cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the innocence of the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 26 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Anant B. Kamble And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 July, 1994

25. Mr. Mondal further submitted that from the evidence of P.W. 11 it would appear that there are houses of some other persons nearby and there is a school where the students were reading, and Amal Mondal also had not been examined. Records do not reveal that the said persons had any role to play, or for that matter they were material witnesses. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses who were the neighbours of the deceased and/or the appellant or whose names have been taken by other witnesses although they do not have much role to play in the matter. Non-examination of such witnesses, in our opinion, is wholly immaterial. It is not a case where the prosecution deliberately and intentionally did not examine any material witness. Nothing has been shown before us that non-examination of such witnesses had in any way prejudiced the appellant in his defence. However, it may be pointed out that in A. B. Kamble's case (Supra), it has been held that non-examination of the witnesses of the locality cannot be said to in law prove fatal to the prosecution. In this case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been found to be reliable by us. In our opinion, while judging a case of this nature the quality of the evidence matters and not the quantity. We may note that except some faint suggestions to some of the witnesses, as for example P.W. 11 and P.W. 15, that they had some sort of enmity, no suggestion had been given to any other witnesses either that they are enemically disposed towards the appellant. In particular, no such suggestion had been given to P.W. 2, Nikhil Biswas, P.W. 3, Kalipada Roy, P.W. 7, Kusum Deori, P.W. 9, Renubala Majhi, P.W. 10, Purna Gayen, P.W. 12, Narayan Byapari and P.W. 13, Manindra Samaddar. The only suggestion that was given to P.W. 11 and P.W. 15 was that in the Sradh ceremony of the wife of the appellant, which took place about 1 month 18 days before, the appellant did not give feast to the villagers. These witnesses admitted that the appellant did not do so, but at the same time they categorically stated that they did not expect the feast even. It also appears unlikely to us that such a large number of witnesses would depose against the appellant to implicate him falsely in a serious case of murder. However, only in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant alleged that he was in enemicial terms with Nikhil Biswas (P. W. 2) as a quarrel ensured between them over hunting of pigs, with Purna Gayen (P.W. 10) over drinking of liquor, with Sudhir Deori, as he did not give back his money of Rs. 3400/- to him until the date of the appellant being forwarded to the court in connection with the case and Baburam Haider over boundary dispute. Such a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken any serious note of as no such suggestion had been given to P.W.2, P.W. 3, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 15 that they were biased as against him or enemically disposed of towards him. Such statements by the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be held to be by way of after-thought. It may be noticed that P.W. 10 in his evidence stated that he had never visited the house of the appellant. Similarly, some of the other witnesses also stated that they had never visited the house of the appellant. Only P.W. 11 stated that he had visited the house of the appellant when necessary. A court has to judge the veracity of the witnesses keeping in view the background, the socio economic condition and other relevant factors. Village Ganesh Nagar, which is even at a great distance from the sea shore, is not a thickly populated area. According to P.W. 11 only 40 families reside there. The Gram Panchayat is situate at Aereal Bay, which is about 4 1/2 hours journey by a boat fitted with engine, from the place. The evidence of the appellant itself suggests that apart from cultivation and plantation etc., people still hunt wild beers. The occurrence took place near the house of the appellant and admittedly the dead body was found on his land. P.W. 9 states that the house of the appellant is about 150 cubits from the place of occurrence, whereas P.W. 11 gives the distance as 150/200 cubits, whereas P.W. 10 states that the said distance would be about 200 to 300 cubits. If the plea of alibi made out by the appellant is not believed, which cannot be done in absence of any materials whatsoever on record, it is absolutely unlikely that the appellant will have no role to play or would not do anything upon finding that a dead body lies in his lands which is very close to his own house. The other defence of the appellant, namely, that the entire village was enemically disposed of towards him because he did not give feast on the occasion of Sradh ceremony of his wife is hard to believe for the reasons stated hereinbefore. Even if the appellant was a. man who had hardly a few friends in the village, would not invite the wrath of all the villagers and particularly the lady witnesses, namely, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges as against the appellant, has brought on materials which proved his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. In short, the prosecution case is supported by ocular evidence, namely, the statements of P.W. 10, who saw the actual commission of the offence; statements of P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 who were going back to their houses from the ration shop of Amal Mondal and to whom the incident was reported by P.W. 10 had themselves saw the accused running away towards his house with the Balam and the body of the deceased lying at the place of occurrence, as well as the conduct of the appellant which is admissible as res geste and his utterances which amount to extra judicial confession as disclosed by P.W. 2 and P.W. 12. Apart from the said ocular evidences all the material witnesses identified the under-wear which the appellant had put on at the time of occurrence and the Ballam, the weapon of offence. The said under-wear and the weapon of offence were seized from his house. Such seizure had not been challenged. Medical evidence also supports the prosecution case to the effect that such a penetrating injury suffered by the deceased can be caused by the Ballam which was shown to the autopsy surgeon, Dr. R. Tulsidasn (P.W. 18).
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - V V Sahai - Full Document
1