AI Overview...
- Color Vision Not a Ground for Discarding Appointment of Constable - Main points and insights:
- The challenge to witness testimony during cross-examination cannot be based solely on the witness's vision (References: 01100038996, IND_Delhi_CRLA-741_2008, 01100073905).
- The improper admission of evidence does not automatically warrant a new trial; the appellate court must independently assess whether the remaining evidence suffices for a verdict (References: 01100038996, 01100073905).
- Challenges related to a witness's vision or the manner of evidence collection are insufficient grounds to exclude evidence or dismiss an appointment or conviction (References: 01100038996, IND_Delhi_CRLA-741_2008, 01100073905).
- Analysis and Conclusion:
- The cited cases collectively emphasize that issues such as a witness's vision or procedural irregularities in evidence collection do not serve as valid grounds for disqualifying a constable’s appointment or dismissing evidence unless they fundamentally affect the integrity of the trial or appointment process.
- Therefore, color vision deficiencies cannot be used as a basis to discard the appointment of a constable, as the primary considerations are the overall integrity of evidence and procedural fairness, not isolated sensory challenges.
Search Results for "Color Vision can Not be Ground for Discarding Appoinment of Constable"
2014 0 Supreme(Del) 1026 • India - Delhi
GITA MITTAL, J.R.MIDHA
Challenge to the witness testimony in cross examination is not based on his vision. ... 1299. ... The improper admission of evidence is thereby expressly declared not to be a ground of itself for a new trial. The appellate Court must apply its own mind to the evidence and after discarding what has been improperly admitted decide whether what is left is sufficient to justify the verdict. ... Gangwar, Constable Dinesh Kumar, Constable Vinod Kumar Singh. ... 615. As ....
• India - Delhi High Court
Challenge to the witness‘ testimony in cross examination is not based on his vision. 1299. ... charged is not of itself a ground for excluding the evidence. ... Gangwar, Constable Dinesh Kumar, Constable Vinod Kumar Singh. 615.As per the recovery memo Ex.PW-34/1, both the accused persons pointed out the place where the dead body was burnt. ... The appellants contend that nothing was recovered by either PW-4 Inspector Chander Pal Singh or PW-5 Constable#HL_EN....
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 349 • India - Delhi
J. R. MIDHA, GITA MITTAL
Challenge to the witness' testimony in cross examination is not based on his vision. 1298. ... The improper admission of evidence is thereby expressly declared not to be a ground of itself for a new trial. The appellate Court must apply its own mind to the evidence and after discarding what has been improperly admitted decide whether what is left is sufficient to justify the verdict. ... charged is not of itself a ground for excluding the evidence. ... The appellants ....
