Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Kamlakar Devidas Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 February, 2014 cites

Narayan Singh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 1985

19 It is also urged before us that the conduct of the witnesses is wholly unnatural as none of the witnesses had raised any cried for help when they had heard the cries of the deceased or had not called for help when the deceased was being assaulted. It is therefore urged that it is doubtful if the eye-witnesses were at all present. Different person react differently when witnessing a ghastly incident. No strait formula can be evolved for determining the conduct of the witnesses. A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1985 SC 1678] wherein Supreme Court held that it is not uncommon when a person see a ghastly incident ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:09:26 ::: 20 APEAL.1227-2007.sxw and ghastly murder committed in their presence that they almost lose their sense of balance and remain dumb founded until they are able to compose themselves. Merely because therefore the sole eye-witness did not immediately disclose the names of the accused to the inmates of the family of the deceased when he went to the house, it could not be said that there was a fatal defect in the prosecution case. Similarly in this case, it is quite possible that the witnesses were dumbfounded and virtually stood rooted to the place where they were standing on seeing the ghastly attack on deceased Suresh. Failure of the witnesses therefore to immediately react and to cry for help would not affect their presence at the scene of the incident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 397 - S M Ali - Full Document
1