Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)
State vs . Arvind on 25 March, 2021 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

46. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and as a sequel of above detailed discussion of law and facts, this court is of the considered opinion that cogent and material evidences have been adduced by the prosecution in order to prove its case and the credibility of the above said prosecution witnesses, could not be shaken or impeached on any material FIR No. 86/2013 State Vs. Arvind 32 points. The prosecution has established the identity of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts and has further proved that the accused person is guilty of the offence charged for. So, the accused Arvind is held guilty and convicted under Section 279/337/338 of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

In the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana ( 04.07.2011), it was held that evidence of an injured witness has to be relied upon, unless the injuries are found to be superfluous or self inflicted just to create evidence against the other party. It was further held that if, the common object stands proved, trivial discrepancies become immaterial and insignificant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 251 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Suvarnamma & Anr on 14 October, 2014

39. Apart from analyzing the testimony of the star witness i.e. the injured, it also becomes necessary to scrutinize the testimony of the eye witnesses i.e. PW­1 Gulshan Kumar and PW­6 Ramesh Kumari. On collectively evaluating the testimony of the eye witnesses, it can be stated that neither the spot of incident i.e. Burari Red Light chowk is doubted nor the alleged time of incident i.e. 06:30 p.m. is brought under scanner as it is categorically stated by PW1 as well as PW6, that when they reached Burari Red Light Chowk, the traffic light was red and their van was standing at the red light waiting of traffic light turning green. At the time the accused came while driving a dumper truck at a very high speed from the side of ISBT and by jumping the red light hit against the traffic light pole and then hit their van while breaking divider. Thus, the testimony of the eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW6 are in sync with each other as well as with the other ocular and documentary evidences on record. At this stage, FIR No. 86/2013 State Vs. Arvind 28 it further become relevant that in the case of State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma and Anothers (14.10.2014), it was observed that:­ " Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious :
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 83 - A K Goel - Full Document

Ugar Ahir And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 6 March, 1964

In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 272 a three judge bench held that:­ "7. the maxim falsus in uno, falsu in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), is neither sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment, it is ,therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and , in terms of the felicitous methapor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 280 - K S Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next