Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.53 seconds)
Rajamanickam vs State cites

State Of H.P vs Prem Singh on 11 November, 2008

12.The father of the victim girl as stated above clearly gave the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. In order to protect the interest of the child, he hesitated to give complaint. Only after the criminal intimidation by the appellant they gave the complaint. Hence, the delay was properly explained. The said explanation was considered with other attending circumstances and accepted by the learned trial Judge. This Court finds no reason to differ with the reasoning of the learned trial Judge in accepting the reason. In the case of sexual offence, the acceptance of the reason is rule and only in the exceptional circumstances, delay is taken into account to test the trustworthiness of the evidence. It is relevant to note that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of H.P. v. Prem Singh, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 420 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 80 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984

In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: (SCC pp. 514-15) “10... Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.... .... Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.” (Brahm Swaroop case [Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 SCC p. 303) 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.564 of 2022 “32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. ‘Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.’ Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses.” 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.564 of 2022 By applying the above principles, the discrepancy between the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.3 about the allegation that the child was standing with dress or without dress is immaterial, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the sexual harassment committed by the appellant by standing in front of the victim girl nakedly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 684 - D A Desai - Full Document

Brahm Swaroop & Anr vs State Of U.P on 26 October, 2010

In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: (SCC pp. 514-15) “10... Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.... .... Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.” (Brahm Swaroop case [Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 SCC p. 303) 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.564 of 2022 “32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. ‘Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.’ Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses.” 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.564 of 2022 By applying the above principles, the discrepancy between the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.3 about the allegation that the child was standing with dress or without dress is immaterial, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the sexual harassment committed by the appellant by standing in front of the victim girl nakedly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 243 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1