According to the learned counsel, the optical interpretation of the story lacks credibility and should be abandoned.
Asgar Shaikh’s tale is doubtful because, despite his claims that he sustained a head injury during the assault, he did not seek medical attention and there is no documentation of the injury in a medical record, rendering it utterly unreliable to believe.
In the same submission, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, vehemently challenged this plea, asserting that there could be no question of inaccuracy in refusing to declare the Act invalid. The Court of Appeal granted the application and thus relied on the sentence passed by the trial court and the resulting order.
“Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body,there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC”, the Court held.
Thus for the furtherance the court came to conclude in the case Balu Sudam Khalde vs The State Of Maharashtra that “we are satisfied that no case has been made out by the appellants to disturb the accused judgment and order of the High Court” As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
Bench : Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.B. Pardiwala
It was noted that any direct evidence of the victim’s witness cannot be ignored unless there is a serious conflict. Therefore, the following information should
The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the incident cannot be unreasonably suspicious, unless there are serious contradictions in his testimony.
Unless the reasoning indicates otherwise, it is assumed that the injured witness prevents the actual offenders from escaping, frame the accused.
The testimony of aggrieved witnesses shall have greater probative value and their testimony shall not be taken lightly unless there are compelling reasons to do so and may not be challenged on the basis of acts of teeth whitening or the presence of slight inconsistencies.
If there is any exaggeration or insignificant embellishment in the testimony of the injured witness, such inconsistency, exaggeration or embellishment will be rejected from the testimony of the injured witness, but not from the entire evidence.
The extent of the prosecutor’s version must be taken into account and the differences, which usually creep in over time due to memory loss, must be rejected.
Therefore terminating the prayers, the court cancelled the bail of the accused ‘s granted to the pleaders and ranged to send them to judicial custodianship to serve their judgment.
SONALI PRADHAN , NETAJI SUBHASH UNIVERSITY , 4 TH SEMESTER
0 Comments