Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011
"10. So far as the question of inconsistency
between medical evidence and ocular evidence is
concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral
evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the
medical evidence, the oral evidence would have
primacy. In the event of contradictions between
medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony
of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-
à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence
makes the oral testimony improbable, the same
becomes a relevant factor in the process of
evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the
contradiction between the two is so extreme that the
medical evidence completely rules out all
possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all,
that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.
(Vide: State of U.P. v. Hari, (2009) 13 SCC 542; and
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of
Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421).
Bastiram vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 February, 2014
In Bastiram v. State of Rajasthan as reported in (2014)
5 SCC 398, It has been held as follows:-
Gangabhavani vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors on 4 September, 2013
33. The question before us, therefore, is
whether the "medical evidence" should be believed
or whether the testimony of the eye witnesses should
be preferred. There is no doubt that ocular evidence
should be accepted unless it is completely negated
by the medical evidence.[(2010)10 SCC 259] This
principle has more recently been accepted in
Gangabhavani v. Rajapati Venkat Reddy.[(2013) 15
SCC 298]
State Of Haryana vs Bhagirath And Others on 12 May, 1999
compendiously refers to the facts stated by the doctor
either in the injury report or in the post mortem
report or during his oral testimony plus the opinion
expressed by the doctor on the basis of the facts
stated. For example, an injury on the skull or the leg
is a fact recorded by the doctor. Whether the
injury caused the death of the person is the opinion of
the doctor. As noted in State of Haryana v.
Bhagirath[ (1999)5 SCC 96] on the same set of facts,
two doctors may have a different opinion.
Therefore, the opinion of a particular doctor is not
final or sacrosanct.
Kapildeo Mandal & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2007
In Kapildeo Mandal v. State
of Bihar[ (2008)16 SCC 99] the facts found by the
doctor were preferred over the eye witness
testimony. The ocular evidence was to the effect
that the deceased suffered firearm injuries.
However, the doctor conducting the post mortem
examination stated that he did not find any
indication of any firearm injury on the person of the
deceased. No pellets, bullets or any cartridge were
found in any of the wounds. Accepting the
"medical evidence" on facts, it was observed that,
"27. ...."[T]he medical evidence is to the
27
effect that there were no firearm injuries on the
body of the deceased, whereas the
eyewitnesses' version is that the appellant-
Dayal Singh & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal on 3 August, 2012
In Dayal Singh v. State of
Uttaranchal[(2012)8 SCC 263] the post mortem
report and the oral testimony of the doctor who
conducted that examination was that no internal or
external injuries were found on the body of the
deceased. This Court rejected the "medical evidence"
Mange vs State Of Haryana on 17 January, 1979
In Mange v. State
of Haryana[ (1979)4 SCC 349] an eye witness to a
rape stated that the offence was committed on a
particular day and at a particular time. However, the
lady doctor who examined the victim was of
the opinion that the offence was committed two days
earlier. This Court did not accept the opinion and
preferred to rely on the eye witness account
holding, inter alia, that:
Mohammad Mian vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 2010
32. In Mohammad. Mian v. State of U.P. as reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 721, it has been held as follows:-