Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Further, the recovery of the knife was not pursuant to any disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made by the Appellant and as such no credence could be given to it. The MLC mentioned it as a case of stabbing but did not name the appellant.

11. Coming to the procedural and other lapses, Mr. Andley submitted that there were serious lapses as copy of FIR and the special report had not been sent to the Metropolitan Magistrate. This would thus raise the presumption that FIR and other documents had been prepared subsequently and doctored with deliberation. Mr. Andley submitted that DD Entry No. 8A recorded as a complaint of the deceased as also the statement allegedly recorded by Sub Inspector at the residence of the deceased on 4th April, 1988, ought not to be relied upon as dying declarations. These do not meet the requirement of being acted upon as dying declarations inasmuch as having not been certified by any medical authority that the deceased was in a fit state to make the statement. Rather MLC dated 3rd April, 1988, exhibit PW 13/A carries an unsigned notation of being unfit for statement. He further submits that inquest papers which are mandatorily required to be sent for postmortem were not sent.