Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 253 at 258.

(3) A.I.R 1927 P.C. 44 at 45-47.

again, it is no part of a Court's duty to enter upon a roving enquiry in the middle of a trial on matters which are collateral to the main issue. The burden is on the person making these allegations to substantiate them and if he chooses to rely on evidence.which does not satisfy the Court he must' suffer the same fate as every other person who is unable to discharge an onus which the law places upon him. It was also argued that there was no proper compliance with the provisions. of section 342 of the Criminal Proce- dure Code. We are satisfied that there was substantial compliance in this case. The facts were simple and few and the crucial matters were brought to the attention of the appellant. In any event, the learned counsel was unable to tell us even at the argument stage exactly how his client was prejudiced and tell us what answers his client would have given to the questions which, according to counsel, ought to have been put to the appellant. We pressed him several times to disclose that but he was unable to do so. As we said at the outset, the case is a very simple one in which a man was caught red-handed with a pistol still in his hand and in which the first information report was recorded practically on the spot within 15 minutes of the occurrence. The murder was committed in day light and there was no dearth of eye-witnesses. Two have been believed, and in the case of the other two, certain statements made by them in the Sessions Court resiling from statements previ- ously recorded in the committal proceedings have been disbe- lieved.