Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)
State vs . 1. Hari Chand on 30 March, 2013 cites

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

The said discrepancies do not reflect upon the substantive evidence and the probative value of the statement of PW1 - prosecutrix made on material and relevant aspects. Nor do they vitiate or negate the prosecution case which is otherwise proved on record by the clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The version of PW1 - prosecutrix on the core spectrum of the crime has remained intact. Moreover, minor contradictions are merely the inconsistencies on the fringe without materially affecting the credibility of the evidence. It is well settled that there are bound to be some discrepancies in the narration of certain 56 of 59 57 FIR No. 34/09 PS - Begum Pur witnesses when they speak out details. The corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishments, there may be, but variations by reasons therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable (Ref. Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 503 - Full Document

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2000

Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Another Vs. State of Gujrat [(2010) 5 SCC 724], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457], D. P. Chadha Vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 205] and Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others [(2002) 5 SCC 100].
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 209 - Full Document

D.P. Chadha vs Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors on 5 December, 2000

Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Another Vs. State of Gujrat [(2010) 5 SCC 724], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457], D. P. Chadha Vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 205] and Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others [(2002) 5 SCC 100].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 139 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000

In State of Government of Delhi Vs. Sunil & Ors. 2000 VIII AD (SC) 613 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the Police is cast on a Police officer when searches are made under chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not for discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 853 - Full Document
1   2 Next