Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 213 (3.13 seconds)
Documents citing Sukhwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 1995

Bistu Pasi Son Of Hari Pasi vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 27 February, 2023

But, while considering the same, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal position regarding the consideration of the testimony of P.W.3 whose testimony reflects that these witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 Chameli Devi, P.W.2 Kanti Kumari, P.W.4 Lalita Devi and P.W.5 Anando Mahtha cannot be considered to be eye witnesses as per the details discussion made hereinabove basing upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh (Supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Nathuni Singh And Anr vs State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2022

11. So far the second issue is concerned, from perusal of the record, it appears that in order to ascertain whether the seized licensee gun was used in course of occurrence or not, the same was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory examination, which is evident from Ext.-6. However, the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been brought on record by the prosecution to suggest that the recovered licensee gun of the appellant Nathuni Singh has been used in course of occurrence. The prosecution has also not produced the said licensee gun as Material Exhibit during the course of trial. The prosecution has also not explained the reason as to why the seized gun was not produced as material exhibit and as to why the FSL report was not brought on record. This is an omission on the part of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.482 of 1996 dt.15-07-2022 10/16 prosecution. Hence the allegation of the prosecution that the appellants have used the seized licensee gun in course of occurrence is not proved. At this juncture, we would like to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 1601, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 20 has held as follows: -
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Guput Singh @ Gupteshwar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2025

30. Thus, in Sukhwant Singh case [Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 367 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 524] , this Court emphasised that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert becomes very important to connect the crime cartridge recovered during the investigation to the firearm used by the accused with the crime. Failure to produce expert opinion in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Vinod Singh vs State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2022

11. So far the second issue is concerned, from perusal of the record, it appears that in order to ascertain whether the seized licensee gun was used in course of occurrence or not, the same was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory examination, which is evident from Ext.-6. However, the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been brought on record by the prosecution to suggest that the recovered licensee gun of the appellant Nathuni Singh has been used in course of occurrence. The prosecution has also not produced the said licensee gun as Material Exhibit during the course of trial. The prosecution has also not explained the reason as to why the seized gun was not produced as material exhibit and as to why the FSL report was not brought on record. This is an omission on the part of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.482 of 1996 dt.15-07-2022 10/16 prosecution. Hence the allegation of the prosecution that the appellants have used the seized licensee gun in course of occurrence is not proved. At this juncture, we would like to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 1601, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 20 has held as follows: -
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014

“18. As far as Dr O.P. Poddar is concerned, he was only tendered for cross-examination without his being examined-in-chief. Though, Dr O.P. Poddar was not examined-in-chief, this procedure of tendering a witness for cross-examination is not warranted by law. This Court in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 367 held that permitting the prosecution to tender a witness for cross-examination only would be wrong and “the effect of their being tendered only for cross-examination amounts to the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the trial”. In the present case, however, non-examination of Dr O.P. Poddar is not very material because the post-mortem report coupled with the testimonies of Dr K.C. Jain PW 1 and Dr J.L. Bhutani PW 9 were sufficient to enable the courts to come to the conclusion about the cause of death.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 140 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Manoj Singh And Dharma Mahato @ Dharam ... vs State Of West Bengal on 15 September, 2006

44. In our opinion, in this case non-sending of blood-stained earth and wearing apparels with stains of blood to FSL for chemical examination and used pellets for examination to ballistic expert is not fatal. The decision in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) cited by Mr. Basu for the appellants is not applicable in this case. In the reported decision the firearm was recovered along with cartridges from the possession of accused and those were not sent to ballistic expert for examination and report. For that reason, the Supreme Court observed that when firearm and cartridges recovered from possession of accused were not sent to ballistic expert it effected creditworthiness of the prosecution case. In the present case before us, nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Dharma Mahato or other accused persons. The firearm used in committing murder of Dinanath Dubey was not recovered. Only two used pellets were recovered which were not sent to ballistic expert. Only used bullets if were sent to the ballistic expert they would have revealed nothing in this case except the report that the used pellets contain sufficient amount of gun-shot residue. If the firearm was recovered then report of ballistic expert had a role to play and opinion of expert would have revealed whether from such firearm those two used bullets/pellets were fired or not. It is undisputed that Dinanath Dubey was murdered by gun-shot injuries. In this case, therefore, non-sending of blood-stained earth and blood-stained wearing apparel and other articles stained with blood to the FSL for chemical examination and pellets to the ballistic expert for examination was not fatal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014

"18. As far as Dr O.P. Poddar is concerned, he was only tendered for cross-examination without his being examined-in-chief. Though, Dr O.P. Poddar was not examined-in-chief, this procedure of tendering a witness for cross-examination is not warranted by law. This Court in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 367 held that permitting the prosecution to tender a witness for cross-examination only would be wrong and "the effect of their being tendered only for cross-examination amounts to the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the trial". In the present case, however, non-examination of Dr O.P. Poddar is not very material because the post-mortem report coupled with the testimonies of Dr K.C. Jain PW 1 and Dr J.L. Bhutani PW 9 were sufficient to enable the courts to come to the conclusion about the cause of death."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Guput Singh @ Gupteshwar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2025

30. Thus, in Sukhwant Singh case [Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 367 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 524] , this Court emphasised that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert becomes very important to connect the crime cartridge recovered during the investigation to the firearm used by the accused with the crime. Failure to produce expert opinion in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next