Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State vs Shanu T on 8 October, 2010
4. During the trial, in order to prove its case,
prosecution examined only three witnesses i.e., PW1 namely
Bhagwan Das, PW2 namely Rajinder and PW3 (complainant)
namely Mohd. Shezad. PW1 and PW2 are the witness who have
identified the body of deceased namely Rajkumar and PW3 is the
eye witness as well as complainant in the present case. PW3 was ANKUR
PANGHAL
examined on 17.11.2022 who deposed that he does not know
Digitally signed by
Cr. Case No. 2199/2017 State vs. Shanu Page 2 of 9 ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2022.12.13
16:54:00 +05'30'
anything regarding present case and further submitted that he
does not want to say anything.
Section 117 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972
17. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled
to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of
the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2013
14. The main witnesses of the prosecution, PW3, have
turned hostile in the present case on the point of driving of
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the accused. He also
denied the suggestion that site plan was prepared at his instance.
It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of
hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim,
"false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With
respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was
observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs.
State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -