Shri Balram Jha vs State Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2023
In
Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. (supra) it was observed as
under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 356 (2.08 seconds)Documents citing
Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & Ors on 20 October, 2016
Ajim Yusufbhai Suryamemon vs State Of ... on 7 April, 2017
Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mahavir Singh (supra), we are of the
considered opinion that aforesaid proposition is also
attracting in the background of present case and
accordingly, relying upon this decision as well, we have
undertaken the exercise of re-assessment of evidence as is
required and accordingly, we have found a suspicious
circumstance in the present case which has not been
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt
35.5 In the case of Harbeer Singh (supra) as well, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with an issue of interested
witness and the evaluation of the testimony of such
witnesses coupled with an issue as to under which
circumstance, benefit of doubt is also to be considered.
Relevant extracts contained in paragraph Nos.7, 11, 20, 23
and 25 are reproduced hereinafter:
State vs . (1) Buta Ram on 4 September, 2019
51. PW8 Prem Prakash during crossÂexamination has admitted
that his first statement in this case was recored on 06.08.2013 i.e. after
more than two months of the incident. It is relevant to note that the
statement of the PW8 Prem Prakash was not recorded by the police even
when he handed over the above referred documents during investigation
and the reason for non recording of his statement is not explained or
noted by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the judgment Harbir
Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016) SCC 418, whereby Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that the burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable
doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. It was further observed
that delay in recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., although those witnesses were or could be available
for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of
occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt upon the prosecution
case.
Dibakar Swain And Others vs State Of Odisha on 5 July, 2022
24. The decision in Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal (supra) reiterates
the settled position in law on the question of appreciation of
evidence, where it holds as under:
Hemanta Kumar Patel @ Hemanta vs State Of Odisha on 19 July, 2022
26. The Court does not find any great discrepancy as regards the
place of occurrence. The occurrence took place in two stages. In
other words, there are two parts to the occurrence, one was the
Gai Gotha and the other at the actual point of attack. The Court
has also seen the spot map and finds that the versions of PWs 8
and 9 do get probabilized by the spot map. The Court is not
satisfied that the discrepancy as pointed out in Syed Ibrahim
(supra) or Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal (supra) is present in the
case. The discrepancy regarding the wearing apparels of the
accused are also not so material when one looks at the evidence of
PWs 8 and 9 in toto. This again cannot be pulled out of context to
doubt the credibility of the witnesses.
Abid vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 November, 2025
1699 of 2011 and 1914 of 2011
31
2016/KER/8036
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIWANI NEGI CRL.A. 260/2023 & connected matters Page 40 of 129
Signing Date:03.11.2025
20:46:24
h. Rohtash v. State of Haryana33,
i. Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Others with State of
Rajasthan v. Sheeshpal and Others34,
j. Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur and Others v. State of
Karnataka35,
k. Laxman v. State36,
l. Ganesh Datt v. State of Uttarakhand37,
m. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh38,
n. Allauddin Mian and Others Sharif Mian and Another v.
Amir Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2020
However, we do not wish to emphasize that the corroboration by
independent witnesses is an indispensable rule in cases where
the prosecution is primarily based on the evidence of seemingly
interested witnesses. It is well settled that it is the quality of the
evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required
to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. It
is also important to see that if the witness is a related witness,
after proper scrutiny is found to be chance witness, it is to be
ascertained as to whether that witness was present at the scene
or not. It will be proper to quote paragraphs 15, 19 to 24 of the
said judgment :-
Ram Naresh Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 January, 2017
In case of Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal
(supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the consistent view taken
in case of appeal against acquittal that unless the findings are
perverse and not reasonably possible view, the appellate Court
need not interfere.
Venkatesha @ Anta vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2018
In this connection, we
also referred to the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal & others (cited
supra), more particularly, paragraphs-16 and 17. In
the said decision also, the delay of two days in
recording the statement was viewed seriously by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is observed by Their
Lordships "In the present case, the date of
occurrence was 21.12.1993 but the statements of
PW.1 and PW.5 were recorded after two days of
incident, i.e., on 23.12.1993.The evidence of PW.6
Mangat Ram Sharma S/O Sh. Swami Dass R/O vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 June, 2022
In 2017 CRI. L.J 169 (SUPREME COURT) (Harbeer Singh v.
Sheeshpal and others) Hon'ble Supreme court of India while acquitting
the accused for commission of offence of murder u/s 303 IPC on the
ground of recording of the delayed statements of prosecution witnesses
by the investigating officer of the case, in paragraphs 15, 16 & 17 of the
judgment held as under:-