Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.49 seconds)
Kunwar And Ors. (In Jail) vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 1993 cites

Ram Prakash Arora vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 1972

Reference has been made above of the case of Bal Kishan v. State and Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab regarding non-cross-examination of witness regarding a particular material assertion. Banwari (PW 1) remained consistent in his testimony regarding the occurrence and he was not shaken at all during his cross-examination. There is force in the contention of the learned A.G.A. that the questions regarding the murder of Smt. Bhanumati should have been raised by the defence in the cross-examination of Banwari (PW 1) and that this having not been done, no adverse inference can be drawn against this witness. The learned counsel for the appellants, has referred to the examination-in-chief of Banwari (PW 1) wherein he stated that Chhidda was armed with Lathi and argued this indicates, untruthfulness of this witness. No doubt in his examination-in-chief, this witness made statement that Chhidda was armed with Lathi but this by itself is not of much consequence. It is not the prosecution case that Chhidda had attacked Budhai and Smt. Bhanumati nor there is any mention of Lathi in Chhidda's hand in the First Information Report. In his cross-examination, as already mentioned above, Banwari (PW 1) had deposed that Chhidda had not attacked and had made exhortations only. Hence, it cannot be said that Banwari is untruthful witness. Even if Banwari had made false statement in respect of Chhidda having been armed with Lathi, the evidence of this witness cannot be discarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Bal Krishan Sayal vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 1987

Reference has been made above of the case of Bal Kishan v. State and Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab regarding non-cross-examination of witness regarding a particular material assertion. Banwari (PW 1) remained consistent in his testimony regarding the occurrence and he was not shaken at all during his cross-examination. There is force in the contention of the learned A.G.A. that the questions regarding the murder of Smt. Bhanumati should have been raised by the defence in the cross-examination of Banwari (PW 1) and that this having not been done, no adverse inference can be drawn against this witness. The learned counsel for the appellants, has referred to the examination-in-chief of Banwari (PW 1) wherein he stated that Chhidda was armed with Lathi and argued this indicates, untruthfulness of this witness. No doubt in his examination-in-chief, this witness made statement that Chhidda was armed with Lathi but this by itself is not of much consequence. It is not the prosecution case that Chhidda had attacked Budhai and Smt. Bhanumati nor there is any mention of Lathi in Chhidda's hand in the First Information Report. In his cross-examination, as already mentioned above, Banwari (PW 1) had deposed that Chhidda had not attacked and had made exhortations only. Hence, it cannot be said that Banwari is untruthful witness. Even if Banwari had made false statement in respect of Chhidda having been armed with Lathi, the evidence of this witness cannot be discarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next