Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sukhdev Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 13 September, 2001
14. It is settled law that the court has to see the quality of the evidence and not
quantity. Similarly when the witnesses are examined in the court after a long gap minor
FIR No. 352/07 State Vs. Surender Kumar Page No.7/10
contradictions, omissions and discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of the
witness. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain
of untruth or an exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. Merely because in one
respect it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of a witness it does not necessarily follow as
a matter of law that it must be discarded in all other respects also. Reliance is placed
upon Sukhdev Yadav & Others Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8SCC 86 wherein it has
been held 'Once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the
court should not hesitate in accepting the same. If the evidence in its entirely appears to
be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor
variations in evidence.
Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999
When the witnesses are examined after a long gap minor
contradictions omissions and discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of
witnesses' Relying upon an earlier decision in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana
(1999) 9 SCC 525 it was observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies
between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the
contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the
evidence in its entirely. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical
niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but
variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses
unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable
evidence.
Section 23 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 378 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 155 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984
6. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs.
State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it
was observed as under:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond
all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire
distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be
improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go
to the accused".