Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 258 (2.39 seconds)
Documents citing Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2011

State Of J&K Through Sho Police Station vs Parvaiz Ahmad Tantray And Ors on 9 June, 2023

―jis pistol se mainemasami Mohd. Afzal Kha S/o Samander Khan ko maine mara wo apne naye zere takmil makaan ki pehli manzil karma janab-e-magrib zere samaan tamerati me chhupa ke rakha huya hai nishandeyi karke bramad karwasakta hu‖ Sp. PP argued that five witnesses associated with the recovery of the pistol, live cartridges and the magazine consistently proved the seizure of the same and the accused persons can't escape from it. Per contra defence counsel forcefully challenged the same particularly on the ground that no independent witness has been associated despite the fact the same could have been easily procured inasmuch the alleged place of recovery is surrounded by many houses as stated by the prosecution witnesses. Ld. Counsel argued that all the witnesses are police officials whereas PW-5 is the son of the deceased. PW-12, PW-14, PW-15, PW-18 and PW-Manzoor Ahmad Khan have been associated with the recovery made pursuant to the disclosure statement made by A-1. According to PW-12 A-1 made the disclosure statement on 10.06.2011 in the evening. Thereafter they left for Rebon Sopore and reached at 10/11 PM and returned back in the police station at 11 PM. It is stated by the witness that he put his signature on the recovery memo at 11.30 PM. Its collorary is that the witness did not put his signature on the seizure memo at the time of effecting the recovery on the spot. If the recovery memos were prepare at the police station itself then the same would lose its sanctity as held in Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2011 SC 72 and in Mustkeem v. State of Raj. AIR 2011 SC. PW-14 stated that he along with other went for recovery but he did not enter inside the house rather remained outside. It is stated that I.O recovered the pistol. The statement of PW-14 has not legal value inasmuch as the witness did not witness the recovery for the reasons that he remain outside the house, i.e., the place of recovery. The statement of PW-14, therefore, also has no help for the prosecution case. PW-15 is another witness associated with the recovery. According to him they left for Rebon Sopore at 7 PM and reached there at 9 PM. He also stated that 5/7 civilians were called by the I.O who put their signatures on recovery memo which fact is denied by the I.O. In case the witness is believed it mean the recovery memo on which the civilian put their signatures has been withheld by the I. O. In case the I. O. is believed it would make the statement of PW- 15 doubtful. Similarly, PW-18 also stated that 2/3 civilians were called on spot who were taken inside the place of recovery. The witness also deposed that he remained outside and had not gone inside. He further stated that I. O showed him the recovery on 17 CRAA No. 19/2017 11.06.2011 because of darkness. Its corollary is that this witness like PW-14 did not witness the recovery for the reasons that they remained outside the house. As per PW-30 he went for recovery and reached Sopore at 1.20 PM and at Rebon at 1.40 PM. PW-30 has contradicted all other witnesses who deposed that the recovery was affected in the evening or in the night. PW-30 stated that statement of the witnesses to this extent are wrong. Let's proceed on the version of PW-30. It was the day time when he reached at the place of recovery. As per PW-5 the place of recovery of pistol is surrounded by 8 houses. Admittedly no independent witness was called to witness such a serious and important aspect of the case.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document

Lochan Ram And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2015

23. Coming to the next circumstance i.e. weapons allegedly used in commission of offence and other articles seized on alleged disclosure statements of accused/appellants. In the present case, recoveries on the basis of alleged disclosure statements of accused persons were sought to be proved from the statements of Rajkumar (PW-3) & Gokul (PW-8), but both these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Rajkumar (PW-3) has stated that none of the accused persons, except accused/appellant No.5, has made disclosure statement of any article in his presence and that on being called by the police, he went to the police station where he, at the instance of police, has signed all the documents. Gokul (PW-8), another seizure witness, has though supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of certain articles from the accused/appellants, but not supported recovery of alleged weapons of offence i.e. stick & dauli (a kind of weapon made of iron) by saying that the same have been shown to him in the police station. This witness has also admitted that he has signed the documents in the police station after six days of incident. In such situation, the recovery based on disclosure statements does not inspire confidence and it is not safe and proper to hold that the circumstance of recovery of above articles was established by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Even, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgment delivered in the matter of Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2011 SC 72 has held in the matter of Mustkeem vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011 (11) SCC that if the recovery memos were prepared at the police station itself then the same would lose their sanctity.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Sanjay Kujur Son Of Late Prem Kujur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2024

In Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has 9 discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next