Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: anthracene powder use in Natwarlal Mohanlal Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 29 March, 2007Matching Fragments
(viii) There is inconsistency in the evidence about the place where the anthracene powder marks were seen or noticed while performing the procedure with the help of ultra-violate lamp and at the time of drawing second panchanama.
(ix) Absence of evidence of the persons who gave money to the complainant so in turn the same can be given to the accused, is also an important lacuna.
8. Mr. Anandjiwala has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Naginlal Nandlal v. The State of Gujarat Vol.II-1961 GLR 664, wherein this Court has observed about the use of anthracene powder in arranging the ACB trap and nature of evidence required to prove the anthracene powder marks. According to Mr. Anandjiwala, if observations made by this Court in the above-cited decision are kept in mind, evidence led by the prosecution in the present case, should not be accepted as convincing evidence because nobody has stated in his deposition that any of them were aware about the characteristic and effect of use of anthracene powder in a scientific manner. On the contrary, witnesses were not clear about the type of marks that they had seen when ultra-violate lamp procedure was followed.