Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
State vs . Sanjeev on 18 November, 2011 cites

State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984

8. PW2 has also been testified during her examination that 4 months back before the incident occurred the accused was living as tenant in their house and he was living on the Ground floor, however, witness failed to tell the exact amount of the rent. The details of the tenancy were not kept by the witnesses, however, both the eye­witnesses/material witnesses admitted that the accused had in the relation of land lord/tenant with their parents. The presence of a person in such a condition would not be established proper/fit so as to punish him U/s 456 IPC. Moreover, the presence of the accused was never concealed by him. The standard of proof in criminal case are as in "State of U.P V. M.k Anthony, (SC)" that " While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness rea as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinies the evidence more particularly keeping in view that deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial mattes not touching the core of the case, hyper­technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the I.O not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. It the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the Appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may FIR No. 416/03 4/6 differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 684 - D A Desai - Full Document

Rajinder & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 12 July, 1995

7. The licensee occupying the property on the unilateral revocation of licence by the licensor is not guilty or criminal trespass as it could not be inferred that after revocation of licence, the licensee hade any intention to cause annoyance, intimidation or insult to the licensor - Somnath Paul V Ram Bharose 1991 Cr LJ 2499 (AII) and the unauthorised entry into or upon the property in the possession of another or unlawfully remaining thereafter lawful entry can answer the definition of criminal trespass if, an only if, such unlawful entry or unlawful remaining is with the intent to commit an offence orto FIR No. 416/03 3/6 intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. Therefore, unless any of the ingredients referred in section 441 is proved, no offence of criminal trespass can be said to have been committed. Such an intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a given case ­ Rajinder v State of Haryana (1995) 5 SCC 187: 1995 SCC (Cri) 852.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 33 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document
1