Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 336 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home ... vs Wasif Haider on 10 December, 2018
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Others, reported in (2019) 2
SCC 303, the Supreme Court examined a case arising out of indiscriminate rioting
and firing by police personnel, which resulted in the death of a senior police officer
and injuries to other individuals. Upon a careful scrutiny of the medical and
forensic evidence, the Court noticed a glaring inconsistency between the
CRAA No. 11/2003 c/w CRA No. 08/2002 Page 13 of 21
prosecution version and the post-mortem report. The post-mortem disclosed only
two firearm injuries on the body of the deceased, one entry wound and one exit
wound, clearly attributable to a single bullet. Despite this, the prosecution alleged
that the bullet had been recovered from the ashes of the deceased after cremation.
The Court found this version to be wholly irreconcilable with the medical evidence,
observing that the presence of an exit wound necessarily implies that the bullet had
passed through and exited the body. In such circumstances, the alleged recovery of
the bullet from the ashes of the deceased was inherently improbable and
inconsistent with the medical findings.
Syed Ibrahim vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 July, 2006
27. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syed
Ibrahim v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 601. Paragraph 10
of the said judgment lucidly explains the legal position with respect to appreciation
of evidence and the applicability of the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. The
Supreme Court categorically held that the said maxim has no application in India
and has not attained the status of a rule of law. It was observed that even if a
portion of the evidence is found to be deficient or untrustworthy, the entire
prosecution case need not be discarded if the remaining evidence is sufficient to
CRAA No. 11/2003 c/w CRA No. 08/2002 Page 14 of 21
establish the guilt of the accused. The duty of the Court is to separate the grain
from the chaff and to assess whether the trustworthy portion of the evidence can
independently sustain a conviction. However, where truth and falsehood are so
inextricably interwoven that separating them would require reconstruction of an
entirely new case, the only course open to the Court is to discard the evidence in its
entirety. The Court further clarified that while normal discrepancies attributable to
errors of observation, memory, or mental disposition do not corrode the credibility
of the prosecution case, material discrepancies do so and must be viewed with
caution.
Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs The State Of Gujarat on 13 September, 2023
In this regard, reliance has been placed on Javed Shaukat Ali
Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164, wherein the Supreme Court
reiterated that mere presence in a mob or unlawful assembly is not sufficient to
fasten criminal liability. The prosecution must establish that each accused shared
the common object or intention at all relevant stages. The Court further held that
where identical or similar evidence is led against multiple accused, the principle of
parity mandates that similarly situated accused must receive similar treatment.