Tahsildar Singh vs State of UP | Landmark Cases | Indian evidence Act | StudyIQ Judiciary

[@studyiqjudiciary]

🏆Ace Your Judiciary Journey with our Unique Eklavya Batch Batch Link - www.studyiq.com/course-detail/eklavya-judiciary-live-foundation-batch ● Clear Prelims of any State Judiciary and get 50% fee refund ● Clear any State Judiciary and get 150% fee refund ● Success Assurance with 1 yr extra validity Enroll now in MONSOON Dhamaka sale and get the batch in just 27,999 by using your Favorite Educators Code Hurry up! Admissions closing on 31st July For any queries please call us on - 080-49801290

[@journeytojoy6446]

Very valueble and practical explanation

[@jeetsinghjaswal1089]

Your way of teaching is such that even a lay man can understand the concepts. Regards for efforts.

[@advkranti5967]

To the point explanation... could understand something regarding Tehsildar singh😊 thank you Sir

[@vasudevmonga8098]

🙏

[@mahin4565]

Very stimulating lectures and brilliantly taught👍💯

[@vasudevmonga8098]

Thank you

[@saumyas.s9386]

Crisp and crux of the story is that contradiction means the difference between what witnessed stated before the court and not one what he said he had stated and what was actually reduced into writing because on the first part if u look at the term evidence whi is defined under IEA which only consideres the statement recorded in court as piece of evidence and not that statement which is recorded by IO under 162, CRPC and hence it is immaterial as to what he said he had stated before IO and what actually written down by him because the contradiction is of his previous statement and as per 145 second limb the attention of witness has to be drawn on that statement on which the advocate wants to contradict him and if he denies that he has not stated anything contrary to his previous statement which means contradiction is only brought on record and then the advocate has to ask the IO whether that person has stated that thing or not he would deny it and hence the contradiction will stand proved

[@bikidas5162]

161

[@pratibhajoshidalal1950]

Hanji

[@2410198624091980]

Excellent work being done by you sir👏👏👏

[@vasudevmonga8098]

Thank you

[@artfoemagic9912]

Dhanyawad sir

[@ajaybhakt3850]

Thanks, very properly explain.

[@studyiqjudiciary]

For all Judicial Services Exams visit here bit.ly/JudiciarybyStudyIQ Judiciary (Pre + Mains) bit.ly/JudiciaryPreMains StudyIQ Judicial Services Course covers -Videos of all the Major and Minor laws, Local Laws - Weekly Live Doubt cum Mentorship Sessions -Current Affairs Videos by Dr. Gaurav Garg, -Judgement Writing Classes, Essay Writing and Answer Writing Classes and many more Sessions -Test Series for Prelims -Subject wise PYQ Paper Sets for all State Judicial Services. Judicial Service Examinations of 15 States Covered- Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Orissa, Jharkhand , Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh For all Judicial Services Exams visit here bit.ly/JudiciarybyStudyIQ Download the App to Subscribe to the Course bit.ly/StudyIQAPP For any doubt, Call 95-8004-8004 Click here for Whatsapp Chat wa.me/919554443351

[@kannukukoo2781]

Sir please हिंदी में बोल दिया करो कुछ word meaning bhi baki tho sab समझ आया है contadict मतलब

[@shreeprakashupadhyay9033]

Very good

[@ramavtargurjar4823]

सर नमस्ते मेरे खिलाफ 498A, और 323,341 के केस चल रहे हैं, दोनों केस अलग अलग कोर्ट्स में चल रहे हैं। मुझे ये पूछना है कि मेरी पत्नी ने किसी बिंदु को लेकर एक केस में अलग बात कही और दूसरे केस में उसी बिंदु को लेकर अलग बात बोली तो मेरा सवाल आपसे ये है कि क्या एक केस की जिरह दिखाकर दूसरे केस में गवाह को contradict किया जा सकता है। और किस नियम के तहत किया जा सकता है ये contradiction.

[@aryaaishwaryaacharya2877]

Agar cross examination main is type ka questions allowed ho k evidence record ho chuka hoga to kya hoga iska result

[@awadheshsinghyadav1617]

Nice lecture

[@vasudevmonga8098]

Thank you :)

[@abhishekaarote7552]

This was one of the moot questions in Tahsildar Singh. Before the police the witness said there was a lantern. Before the court he said there was a 'gas' lantern. The omission of the word 'gas' was raised during cross-examination and that was disallowed by the sessions judge. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the decision of the Sessions judge since there was no material omission as far as the lantern was concerned. The next issue on 'omission' was on the assertion of the witness before the trial court that while returning from the crime scene, the assailants scrutinised the faces of the deceased persons. This was not stated before the police. The discussion of the supreme court on this aspect was as follows : " The same can be said also about the scrutiny of the faces of the dead bodies. In the statements before the police, the movements of the appellants were given. It was stated that they shot at the people and decamped with the gun of Bharat Singh. The present evidence that in the course of their pursuit, they looked at the faces of two of the dead bodies does not in any way contradict the previous versions, for the said incident would fit in with the facts contained in the earlier statements. The appellants could have shot at the audience, pursued them, taken the gun of Bharat Singh and on their way scrutinized the dead bodies. The alleged omission does not satisfy any of the principles stated by us."[5] This should be the way in which omissions are to be analysed, considered and proved. The trial judge, being the master of the ceremonies should be vigilant against cross-examination on insignificant omissions and contradictions. Adv. Abhishek Arote, 9833348250

[@vasudevmonga8098]

👍

[@shambhunathpanditadvocateb3917]

Nice

[@jaspreetsingh-rg4lz]

Can we say like........ Leading question of the cross examine can't be putt in the contradiction under (145 part 2 of IEA).

[@freedomtownn]

Thank youuu

[@chandradeepsahu5042]

Thank you sir 🙏🏾

[@vasudevmonga8098]

Samaj aagya sab ?

[@saumyas.s9386]

@@vasudevmonga8098 i have one doubt let's take example of ipc 302 murder case where alredy trial is going on and where 4 accused are there 2 of them are found to be juveniles hence they are prosecuted at the Juvenile justice board as per JJ ACT here witness A who was an eye witness who remained intact and supported the prosecution at session trial where 2 of accused where being tried then that same eye witness went to the JJ board but there he deposited altogether a different story directly contrary to what he had stated in session court here as an advocate of accused who is being tried at session court can I contradict him by recalling him under section 311 of crpc here there is also a question under 145 IEA whi is very subtle and complex if u look at the words which is saying that the contradiction can be made only on previous statements but not subsequent statements here there is also a question of section 155 of IEA so technically he cannot be contradicted considering the language used in second limb of IEA sec 145 which talks about contradiction here i want to impeach his credibility as subsequently that witness in another judicial proceedings arising out of same cause diposited different version which is directly contrary to his statement recorded in session court because here there is an inconsistency as to as his narration provided he has stated two different version

[@madhudubey7009]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@vasudevmonga8098]

🙏

[@dnyaneshwarjabraskar3669]

Omission sir not cross examination sir

[@murtazakhan3802]

How you pronounce cooontradiction.

[@MyWorld-cm4wr]

U make it more complicat😌

[@ayeshapatel1642]

Sir mujhe kuch samjh nahi aya

[@shashikantsalunke1447]

Hindi bolneme Sharm aatihekya ?😮 English me batki kuch bhi smzanhiii

[@abhishekaarote7552]

The court further held that such a fiction is permissible by construction only in the following three cases. Para 26. ' From the foregoing discussion the following propositions emerge: … (3) though a particular statement is not expressly recorded, a statement that can be deemed to be part of that expressly recorded statement can be used for contradiction, not because it is an omission strictly so called but because it is deemed to form part of the recorded statement; (4) such a fiction is permissible by construction only in the following three cases: (i) when a recital is necessarily implied from the recital or recitals found in the statement: illustration: in the recorded statement before the police the witness states that he saw A stabbing B at a particular point of time, but in the witness box he says that he saw A and C stabbing B at the same point of time; in the statement before the police the word "only" can be implied i. e., the witness saw A only stabbing B; (ii) a negative aspect of a positive recital in a statement: illustration: in the recorded statement before the police the witness says that a dark man stabbed B, but in the witness box he says that a fair man stabbed B; the earlier statement must be deemed to contain the recital not only that the culprit was a dark complexioned man but also that he was not o of fair complexion; and (iii) when the statement before the police and that before the Court cannot stand together: illustration: the witness says in the recorded statement before the police that A after stabbing B ran away by a northern lane, but in the Court he says that immediately after stabbing he ran away towards the southern lane; as he could not have run away immediately after the stabbing i. e., at the same point of time, towards the northern lane as well as towards the southern lane, if one statement is true, the other must necessarily be false.' Adv. Abhishek Arote. 9833348250

[@beautifulmoments5338]

Thank you Sir

[@madhudubey7009]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏