Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Harisinh Mansinh Vasava on 22 July, 1999 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Gambhirsinh Narubha Jadeja on 3 July, 1998

In State of Gujarat vs. Gambhirsingh Narubha Jadeja - 39 (3) G.L.R. Page 2043, a Division Bench of this Court (one of us J.N. Bhatt, J. was a party), has highlighted the doctrine of doubt and the resultant benefit to the accused and the parameters thereof. It has been clearly held that doubt must be a reasonable doubt which is simply that degree of doubt which would permit to reach a conclusion, and principles in that regard, elaborately stated in Paras 22 & 23, in that decision, are very relevant and we would like to highlight the same again hereunder for the simple reason that the Court is obliged to consider a doubt and if it is reasonable, benefit must be conferred to the accused, as that is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence we have wedded to, but at the same time, it must be remembered in the light of the principles that the doubt which can be taken cognizance of not that of a weak or oscillating and vacillating capricious, indolent or confused mind;
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Angad vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980

How one would react would obviously and evidently depend upon variety of circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said to be safe to conclude, that the circumstance, that merely because a person, who is a witness to an incident and who has seen the infliction of multiple blows, failed to intervene, itself is a doubtful circumstance. The proposition, which we have considered, and which the learned trial Court Judge failed to appreciate, is very well propounded in host of judicial pronouncements. We would like to highlight one such important decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Angad Vs. State of Maharashtra - 1981 Criminal Law Journal 733, wherein it has been clearly observed in Para 13 that the Court cannot reject the evidence of a eye witness who is otherwise truthful and creditable merely on the ground that he did not intervene to save the life of the deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

S.G.P. Committee vs M.P. Dass Chela (Dead) By Lrs on 30 April, 1998

This proposition is very well examined and explored and settled in S.G.P. Committee Vs. M.P. Cass Chela (Dead) by LRs. - (1998) S.C.C. 157. It has been clearly observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while appreciating the provisions of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, that when witnesses are disbelieved on some points would not necessarily mean that they should be disbelieved on other points. The purpose, the policy and the maxim or the doctrine of `falsum in uno falsum in omnibus' has been succinctly propounded and explained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next