Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Rohtash vs State Of Haryana on 22 May, 2012
In Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589, it has been held that-
Thaman Kumar vs State Of Union Territory Of Chandigarh on 6 May, 2003
In Thaman Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380, it is held that
" the conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye-witnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category t may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony".
Niranjan Prasad & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1996
The principle laid down in this case totally fits in this case. According to the witnesses the deceased was killed by using a dagger and fire arm while there is no injury of dagger in the shape of punctured wound and there is no injury of fire arm. Hence, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to convict the accused persons.
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
In Uma Shankar Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (50) ACC 152 (All... LB) (DB) and State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652, it has been held that-
Sunil Kundu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2013
In Sunil Kundu Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) SCC (Cri) 427, it has been held that -
Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P on 9 September, 2003
In Devatha Venkata Swamy @ Ramgaiah Vs. Public Prosecutor High Court, 2004 SCC (Cri) 963,
" The witness in his evidence clearly stated that the appellant pierced the forehead of the deceased once, but the medical report shows that the injuries caused to the forehead of the deceased was by the use of a blunt weapon and that too by repeated blows. So there was direct conflict between the medical evidence and ocular evidence. Hence the prosecution case was not believed. "
Maruti Rama Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2003
In Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 0 Supreme (SC) 863, it has been held that -
Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 September, 1973
Another golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocent, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. ( See: Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; Chandrappa & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 4 SCC 415: Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 242).