Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 55 (0.63 seconds)Documents citing
Raghunandan vs State Of U.P on 10 January, 1974
Ag vs Shiv Kumar Yadav on 10 September, 2015
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the
impugned order and submitted that though the previous counsel had
11
(2002) 4 SCC 578
12
(1995) 1 SCC 14
13
(2013) 5 SCC 741
14
(1991) Supp. 1 SCC 271
15
(2004) 4 SCC 158
16
(2013) 16 SCC 173
17
Crl.M.C.8479/2006 & Crl.M.A. 14359/2006, decided on 20.02.2008 (Delhi H.C.)
18
(2007) 11 SCC 191
19
(2006) 9 SCC 386
20
(1980) 1 SCC 81
21
(2011) 8 SCC 136
5
cross-examined the witnesses, he had not asked relevant questions nor
given suggestions which were required to be given. He placed reliance
on Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh22, Hardeep
Singh vs. State of Punjab23, Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana24,
State of Rajasthan vs. Ani @ Hanif25, Ritesh Tewari vs. State of
U.P.26, Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De
Sequeria (dead) through Lrs.27, Rajeshwar Prosad Misra vs. State
of West Bengal28, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs. The State of
Maharashtra29, Raghunandan vs. State of U.P.30, Shailendra
Kumar vs. State of Bihar31, Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West
Bengal32, U.T. of Dadra & Haveli vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh
Chauhan33, Iddar vs. Aabida34, Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs.
State of M.P.35, Godrej Pacific Tech.
Chandrajit Singh @ Chehku And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 July, 2023
In the case of Raghunandan Vs. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 186, the Apex Court has held as follows :
Munna Pandey vs State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2023
51. This Court in Raghunandan v. State of U.P. reported in
(1974) 4 SCC 186, it was observed:-(SCC p. 191, para 16)
47
“16. We are inclined to accept the argument of the
appellant that the language of Section 162, Criminal
Procedure Code, though wide, is not explicit or specific
enough to extend the prohibition to the use of the wide
and special powers of the Court to question a witness,
expressly and explicitly given by Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act in order to secure the ends of justice.
….Therefore, we hold that Section 162, Criminal
Procedure Code, does not impair the special powers of the
Court under Section 165, Indian Evidence Act. …”
(Emphasis supplied)
Munna Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 11 October, 2023
The State Of Bihar vs Munna Pandey on 11 October, 2023
State Of Rajasthan vs Bhera on 9 October, 1996
21. Having carefully considered the statements of Kala P.W. 4, Sakra P.W. 5, Jiva P.W. 6 and Nana P.W. 7 we are of the opinion that none of these witnesses can be relied upon for the purpose of ascertaining the time at which Bhera and Surma started from the house of Bhana. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in relying upon the statements of these witnesses for the purpose of holding that Bhera and Surma started from the house of Bhana at or about 5 p.m. The prosecution case as given in the first information report Ex. P. 1 is that Bhera and Surma started from the house of Bhana at or about 8.30 p.m. and this version is stated by Bhura Ram P.W. 1 who has categorically stated that even though the crowd started disbursing at 5 p.m. it was at 8.30 p.m. that Bhera complained to him that Surma was not paying Rs. 100/- which he had taken as loan 3 years ago and then Surma denied having taken any loan and thereafter the two started exchanging words between them and thereafter they started for their houses. In our opinion the time of departure mentioned in the first information report Ex. P. 1 and in the statement of Bhura Ram P.W. 1 and supported by Chopa P.W. 2 Heera P.W. 3 is reliable and no doubt can be said to be created by the statements of Kala P.W. 4, Sakra P.W. 5, Jiva P.W. 6 and Nana P.W. 7 who for the reasons stated above are not reliable witnesses. It is true that the evidence of the witnesses does not make it untrust worthy merely because the witness was declared hostile by the prosecution but it is equally true that enunciation of above rule does not make the statement of hostile witness trustworthy if the intrinsic quality of the statement given by the hostile witness is so poor that it cannot be relied upon. The evidence given by a witness who has been declared hostile deserves to be scrutinised carefully not only at the time of writing the judgment but even at the time when the witness is in the witness-box and being examined. It is the duty of the prosecution to put questions to the hostile witness which are relevant for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is speaking the truth or for upholding the prosecution version and in case where the statement given by the witness in the court is contradictory with the statement given by the witness to the police under S. 161, Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the prosecution to bring contradiction on record by confronting the witness with his previous statement made to the police and if the prosecutor fails to perform his duty then it is the duty of the Court before whom the witness is being examined to put such questions as are necessary for ascertainment of truth to the witness under S. 165 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Court can confront the witness with his statement made to the police under S. 161, Cr.P.C. In Raghunandan v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 463 : (1974 Cri LJ 453) the Supreme Court observed that "In a criminal case, the fate of the proceeding cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties. The Court has also a duty to see that essential questions are not so far as reasonably possible, left unanswered. We are surprised to find, from the judgment of the High Court, that the questions mentioned above, arising out of the post-mortem report, were not, for some reason, even mentioned there. We find it very difficult to believe that, in a case with a death sentence a matter of such significance, which was noticed by the Trial Court, was not raised at all by the Counsel for the appellants.
Vijay Kumar @ Beni vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2002
In Raghunandan v. State of U.P. (3), with one connected appeal, there Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that "We must emphasis that whatever may be nature of offence, the accused are entitled to a fair trial." The Apex Court while observing that in a criminal case, the fale of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties and the court has also a duty to see that essential questions are not, so far as reasonably permissible, left unanswered and held that "in a serious case of murder, such as the one before us, persons who were, if the prosecution case Is true, acting as utterly Irresponsible and cafious bullies, should be judged on the evidence as it stands without the additional evidence mentioned above by us." Consequently, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and sent back the case to it for reconsideration and decision in accordance with law.
State Of Gujarat vs Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Bariya And Ors. on 26 December, 2003
3. Raghunandan v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1974 SC 463;
State Of Gujarat vs Chavda Manaji Chelaji on 20 July, 1999
He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raghunandan Vs. State of U.P, reported in AIR 1974 S.C 463, in which it is laid down that it is the duty of the Court to see that essential questions are not so far as reasonably possible, left unanswered. In that case, the post-mortem examination took place at 2.40 P.M on 13.12.1969, and the intestines were found distended with gas and the Court observed that it did not know whether this could be their condition at 1.00 P.M on 12.2.1979 or its effect.