Vijay Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 May, 2017
Vijay Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 May, 2017
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 213 (1.16 seconds)Paras Gangwar (Juvenile) vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 August, 2022
submitted his explanation,
writing that the report is a result of human error, for
which he tendered apologies. When considered, the court
took strong exceptions
State vs . Lochan Etc. on 13 August, 2009
memo respectively, but simultaneously
explained that sometimes either by omission or human error
something is written then it is highlighted by such
correction or overwriting
State vs . Uttam Prakash, Fir No. 08/01, P.S. ... on 24 May, 2013
possibility of the occurrence of the incident on account
of miscalculation, human error or error of judgment cannot be ruled out.
There is not even
State vs . Mukesh Kumar & Ors. on 26 February, 2014
basis of a
minor discrepancy which could be due to human error.
18. Ld. defence counsel argued that no effort was made by the police
Tahir S/O Irshad vs State on 1 April, 2014
witnesses at all. This contradiction at best can be described as error of human
memory. The same does not erode the core of the evidence
Bharti Yadav vs State Of Up on 14 November, 2006
proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
State vs . Ganga Prasad & Anr. on 22 February, 2013
wherein it has been
observed that normal discrepancies or errors do creep in because every human
being has human failings and limitations ... that normal discrepancies
or errors do creep in because every human being has human failings and
limitations. It has to be ascertained whether the prosecution
State vs . Naveen Bhargav on 29 August, 2012
wherein
it has been observed that normal discrepancies or errors do creep in because every
human being has human failings and limitations
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Dhoulpuria . on 16 July, 2019
consistent with all human probability
that the act must have been done only by the respondents.
15. We find no error being committed