Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Rajasthan vs Chandagiram & Ors on 9 September, 2014 cites

Kansa Behera vs State Of Orissa on 12 April, 1987

7), the medical officer that the various injuries caused on the deceased were from the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused. Therefore, these findings are strong factors in establishing the culpability of the Respondents-accused in committing the murder. For the very same reasons, reliance placed on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision Raghunath (supra) and on paragraph 12 in Kansa Behera (supra) is also rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 130 - G L Oza - Full Document

Din Dayal vs Raj Kumar @ Raju & Ors. on 3 March, 1998

The learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused, placed reliance on Din Dayal (supra) wherein this Court held that the conduct of the witnesses was unnatural and unreasonable in not informing the police about the incident as they had quietly gone back to their home after the said occurrence. They had also not disclosed the name of the accused to the police constable who was on duty, even though they disclosed other facts regarding the incidents and hence on this ground, the Court had reasons for doubting the truthfulness of the evidence of the witnesses. In the present appeal, there were cogent reasons as has been clearly explained above for the lodging of the FIR on the next morning and the conduct of the witnesses were not in any way similar to the above stated case and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Hence, on this ground, this case is also not helpful to the Respondents-accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002

7), the medical officer that the various injuries caused on the deceased were from the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused. Therefore, these findings are strong factors in establishing the culpability of the Respondents-accused in committing the murder. For the very same reasons, reliance placed on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision Raghunath (supra) and on paragraph 12 in Kansa Behera (supra) is also rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 154 - H K Sema - Full Document

Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2012

Reliance was also placed on Lahu Kamlakar Patil (supra), wherein the ground urged before this Court was that the sole witness in the case ran away from the spot of occurrence and did not inform the police about the incident, but on the contrary hid himself until early morning of the next day, and also that he did not come to the spot where the police arrived out of fear for three hours. He had, in fact, contrary to normal human behaviour, gone to his house in Pune and did not inform his family members. He chose to inform the police about the entire incident after three days, when his wife informed him that the police had come to his house, looking for him. Reliance was placed on the above judgment to state that the conduct of the witness in the present appeal seems to be unnatural i.e., by approaching the police and filing the FIR in a belated manner. We will have to state that in the above case, the sole witness approached the police out of fear and, in fact, did not even lodge the FIR with the police in the first instance. Therefore, this fact is clearly distinguishable from the present appeal, wherein, Choti (PW-1) had genuine reason to lodge the FIR on the morning of next day. Hence, reliance on the above case is also not helpful to the Respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 118 - D Misra - Full Document

Rameshwar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 1951

In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan this Court examined the provisions of Section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and held that (AIR p. 55, para 7) every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the court considers otherwise. The Court further held as under: (AIR p. 56, para 11) “11. … it is desirable that Judges and Magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the witness may be seriously affected, so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the Magistrate or Judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 610 - V Bose - Full Document

Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 May, 2009

11.The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern between right and wrong and the court may find out from the cross-examination whether the defence lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and wrong. The court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by putting questions to him [pic]and even if no such questions had been put, it may be gathered from his evidence as to whether he fully understood the implications of what he was saying and whether he stood discredited in facing a stiff cross-examination. A child witness must be able to understand the sanctity of giving evidence on oath and the import of the questions that were being put to him. (Vide Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh v. State of Maharashtra.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 56 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Shivasharanappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 7 May, 2013

14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.” (Emphasis added) To the same effect is the decision reported in Shivasharanappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2013) 5 SCC 705. Paragraph 17 can be referred to as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 141 - D Misra - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2008

“24. Another contention raised on behalf of the appellant-accused is that only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party.” (emphasis added) Reliance can also be placed upon Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan – (2008) 8 SCC 270, wherein in paragraph 12, the law has been succinctly laid down as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 131 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next