Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for V. K. MISHRA VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND...
V. K. MISHRA VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2015 5 Supreme 614 : Contradiction refers to the process of challenging a witness''''s testimony by referencing their previous statement made in writing or reduced into writing, particularly under Section 161 CrPC. To mark a contradiction, the part of the previous statement intended to contradict the witness must be brought to the witness''''s attention during cross-examination. This requires the court to ensure that the witness is explicitly shown the specific portion of the statement that is to be used for contradiction. If the witness admits the statement, it stands proved. If the witness denies it, the court must record that denial. The contradiction is only formally established when the investigating officer is also confronted with the statement and confirms its authenticity. Without this process—specifically, drawing the witness’s attention to the relevant part of the statement—the statement cannot be used to contradict the witness, even if it exists in the record. This procedure is mandated by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Checking relevance for K. M. Aziz VS T C Kurian...
K. M. Aziz VS T C Kurian - 1990 0 Supreme(Ker) 537 : Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, a previous statement of a witness can be marked for the purpose of contradiction only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain any contradiction between the previous statement and his present statement. The procedure for contradicting a witness''''s previous statement must be strictly observed, and the statement can be admitted in evidence only after drawing the attention of the maker to it. This ensures that the witness is afforded a fair chance to clarify inconsistencies in their testimony.Checking relevance for IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS VS . ...
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS VS . - 2017 3 Supreme 322 : Contradiction refers to discrepancies or inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly when a witness''''s testimony is challenged using prior statements (e.g., case diary statements). To mark a contradiction properly, the relevant portions of the case diary statement used for contradicting a witness must be fully extracted in the deposition. If full extraction is cumbersome, at least the opening and closing words of the contradiction in the case diary statement must be referred to in the deposition and marked separately as a Prosecution or Defence exhibit.Checking relevance for Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala...
Nikhildas Son Of Dasan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581 : Contradiction refers to a situation where a witness''''s statement before the court is inconsistent with their prior statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, or where the witness omits to mention a significant and relevant fact in the prior statement that they later state during trial. According to the Explanation to Section 162 Cr.PC, an omission may amount to a contradiction if it is significant and relevant in the context. For contradictions based on additions (new facts not in the prior statement), the relevant portions of the prior statement must be distinctly marked with the opening and closing words of the relevant parts. This marking is required for proving the contradiction through the person who recorded the prior statement. The guidelines from the Apex Court in Criminal Trials Guidelines and Rule 56A of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice mandate that omnibus marking of entire statements is not allowed; instead, specific portions must be extracted and clearly marked for contradiction purposes.Checking relevance for State of Kerala VS Thomas @ Joy,...
State of Kerala VS Thomas @ Joy, - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 618 : Contradiction refers to a discrepancy between what a witness stated in court and what they previously stated to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to the law, when a witness''''s statement in court contradicts their earlier statement to the police, the relevant portion of the earlier statement must be put to the witness, and their attention must be drawn to it. If the witness admits the previous statement, no further proof is necessary. If the witness denies making the statement, the previous statement must be proved by calling the police officer who recorded it. The contradictory portion must be marked by being underlined or enclosed in a circle and exhibited. The admission of the contradiction must be recorded in the deposition. The entire statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not admissible in evidence, and only the relevant portion used for contradiction can be marked and proved. The procedure requires that the witness be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the contradiction in a fair and reasonable manner.
