with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses required corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation ... 19and A-20, although there were certain discrepancies in their testimony and in comparison to the versions of Prosecution witnesses, the eye-witnesses, in regard
evidence given by eyewitnesses, the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out.
13. Thus, from the above testimonies of the witnesses and documents placed
judgement is reproduced as under: -
"In view of the hostile testimony of PW-1 Ashish Garg, Pw-2
Gaurav Aggarwal, PW-3 Navin ... remaining eyewitness Chander
Prakash was dropped as he was untraceable even after issuance
of summons through DCP concerned. Therefore, in view of
hostile testimony
first opposite party. So, the only course available is to accept the testimony of PW1 that the insured Shankari Amma was not having any such ... eyewitness to the incident. There is no reason or ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. The evidence of DW1 would also support the case
panchanama they turned hostile
to the prosecution version. Hence, the oral testimony of
P.W.17 remained uncorroborated. Furth
Further ... alleged to be colleague officers of C.W.1 and are
eyewitness to the alleged incident turned hostile to the
prosecution version and they
Mange Ram Mittal vs Asstt. Cit on 18 August, 2006
ORDER
S.C. Tiwari, A
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Saini vs Union Of India Through on 20 February, 2014
Central Administrative
witnesses are the children, relatives and neighbors of Baljeet Singh and the testimony of such interested witnesses, could not be held against ... correspondent Sh. Dhirender Pundir is not on the basis of eyewitness but on the basis of recorded CD. Once the CD is not proved
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... vs M/S. Bestochem Formulation (I) Ltd. on 1 June
Mange Ram Mittal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 August, 2006
Equivalent citations
