Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.04 seconds)The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960
Section 11 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Prabhu And Ors. on 12 December, 1978
In this connection, reference may be made to the principles laid down in the cases of State of Haryana v. Prabhu and Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra .
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980
In this connection, reference may be made to the principles laid down in the cases of State of Haryana v. Prabhu and Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra .
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
The learned trial Judge has taken note of the principles laid dawn in the case of Masalti v. State of U.P. to the effect that it would be unreasonable to discard the evidence given by witnesses on the ground that it is evidence of partisan and interested witnesses and the mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. The Court has to appreciate such evidence to find out whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence, whether or not the evidence strikes to the Court as genuine and whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable.
Gajjan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 1976
The act of Kedar catching hold of the deceased from behind might have facilitated the commission of the act of murder by the appellant Pari who stabbed the deceased on his chest by means of a Bhaia, but in the absence of circumstances pointing to a conclusion that in order to facilitate the stabbing by means of a Bhala by the appellant Pari, the appellant Kedar caught hold of the deceased from behind and further in the absence of evidence definitely showing that even when the appellant Par attacked and assaulted the deceased on his chest, the appellant Kedar had caught hold of the deceased, it could not, in our view, be reasonably said that the appellant Kedar had shared the common intention with the appellant Par-in committing the murder of the deceased. Even if it could be said that the appellant Kedar might have the common intention, it could not definitely be said that he must have had the common intention and as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gajjan Singh v. State of Punjab , it would not be sufficient if it is held that somebody may have the common intention and it must be established that he must have had the common intention, as there is a gap between 'may' and 'must'.
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 1979
As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan , where serious injuries are found on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries so as to satisfy the court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation & glaced on the prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) that the injuries on the person of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial and (b) that it must be shown that the injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. In the instant case, the Doctor (P. W. 11) had on 25-11-1976 noticed a lacerated wound on the left hand and an abrasion over the left palm and another abrasion over the across the root of the first metacarpal bone on the left side of the person of the appellant Kedar Ghadei as per Ext. 12, the injury report and according to the Doctor, the lacerated wound could be caused by a blunt object and the other two injuries could be caused by friction with a hard object. On the same day, he had noticed two contusions, one over right wrist and the other over the right elbow of the appellant Judhistir Das and according to him, both the injuries could be caused by a blunt object. Ext, 13 was the injury report.
Ram Kumar Pande vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 1975
As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Pande v. State of Madhya Pradesh , a first information report is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.
Hari Obula Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 1980
In the case of Hari Obula Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the Supreme Court has laid down as follows (para 12):