Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)

Ranjeet vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 March, 2014

Ld. MM has rightly relied on the judgment titled as "Ranjeet Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", Crl. A. 684/2012 decided on 03.03.2014, where it is observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "It is a settled law that the refusal on the part of the appellant without any just reason leads to an adverse inference against the appellants, unless it is shown by the appellants that holding of a TIP was a futile exercise because he had been shown to the witness."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - D Sharma - Full Document

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

I am of the view that is no major contradiction and IO must have taken help of other police officials in preparing the writing work. Taking about contradictions in the testimony of a prosecution witness it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana" 1999 9 (SCC) 525, wherein, it is held as under:­ "it is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same".
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 503 - Full Document
1   2 Next