Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
State vs . Dilbagh Singh on 21 April, 2007 cites

State Of Karnataka vs Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar And Ors on 19 August, 2004

In the case of state of Karnataka vs. Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar AIR 2004 SC 4333 also it was held that Non-examination of Investigating Officer is Not fatal when no serious contradictions is pointed out in respect of evidence of important eye-witnesses in the case of AIR 2003 SC 4664 Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar it has been held in para no 11 Mere non-examination of Investigating Officer does not in every case cause prejudice to the accused or affects the creditability of the prosecution version.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Sansar Chand Atri vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 2 April, 2002

In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the case of Sagar Chand Vs. State 1990 (1) CC Cases 489. in the said case of attempt to murder it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the siteplan does not point out the place from where witness saw the incident and the evidence and the siteplan were not inconformity. It was in such circumstances where evidence of the witnesses was not inconformity with the siteplan that such benefit was given. But in the present case of accident, no such contradiction has come up in the testimony of the eye witnesses regarding the manner of the accident therefore, this lapse is also not fatal. Even otherwise, the accused has not suggested to PW5 in his cross examination that the accused did not jump the red light or that he was not driving fast. When PW-5 specifically deposed that it was the accused who jumped the red light and hit the TSR, accused ought to have put the suggestion failing which this point stands admitted as unrebutted and in such circumstances the lapse in the siteplan is not material enough.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Leela Ram (D) Through Duli Chand vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 October, 1999

17. In the case of Sukhdev Yadav & ors. Vs State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 86 it was held by Hon Supreme Court that that 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 entirety appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence. 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 entirety. 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 503 - Full Document

Krishna Mochi & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2002

In Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, where it was held that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses. It was further held that credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form the basis of conviction. That contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments are inevitable. It was further held that a discrepancy existing in a prosecution case should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the case. It was further held that the duty of the Court is not only to see that no innocent man should be punished but also to ensure that no person committing an offence should get scot-free. It was also held that even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction could be maintained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 689 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Harnam Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 21 November, 1974

9. ld. counsel for the accused has argued that investigating officer in this case has not been examined which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the case of Harnam Singh Vs. State 19982 Cri. L. J 1818 of Allahabad High Court. The said case is distinguishable on the facts of the case. In that case, non-examination of investigating officer was held to be fatal since the accused persons had confronted the eye witnesses with their statements recorded during investigation by the investigating officer which did not implicate the accused in the offences. In such circumstances, it was held that IO ought to have been examined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 60 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1