Next, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the site plan belies the prosecution claim in view of the height of agricultural crops, as PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 could not have seen the incident and more precisely as to which accused was doing what. However, when we examine the deposition of PW 8, it appears that there was some disparity in the height of the agricultural crops. While some crops were waist high, others were only as high as the knees. Hence, there is not much force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents either. Besides, the judgment of this Court in Prithvi v. Mam Raj MANU/SC/0143/2004 : (2004) 13 SCC 279, is an authority for the proposition that site plan is not a ground to disbelieve the otherwise credible testimony of eye-witnesses.
Print Page
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013
Decided On: 20.10.2016
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Citation:(2017) 11 SCC 195.
Read full judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment