[Followed]

Many entries, such as those referencing "State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96," and subsequent citations like "(2011) 7 SCC 130," indicate that courts have followed or relied upon this case for principles related to benefit of doubt, medical evidence, and judicial caution.

The case "State of Haryana v. Bhagirath" appears to be a cornerstone authority that has been consistently followed in subsequent rulings, as evidenced by multiple references to it across different years and contexts.

[Consistently Cited for Specific Principles]

Several references mention that courts have adhered to the principles laid down in Bhagirath regarding the benefit of doubt, medical evidence, and judicial caution, such as:

"The benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath 'as a matter of abundant caution'" (multiple instances).

"In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96, it was held..."

"Drawing on Bhagirath case, this Court has held that..."

These references suggest a treatment pattern of adherence and reliance, indicating the case's ongoing judicial authority.

[Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment]

Some references to other cases, such as "State of Rajasthan, (1993) Supp3 SCC 18" or "State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal," are made in conjunction with Bhagirath but without explicit treatment statements.

The repeated mention of the phrase "benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath 'as a matter of abundant caution'" suggests consistent follow-up, but without explicit statements that these later cases have overruled or criticized Bhagirath, the treatment remains one of reliance rather than overrule or rejection.