State Of Karnataka vs Bhoju Kulal on 5 December, 2022
22. It is relevant to refer to a judgment reported in
1985 Crl.L.J. 645 in the case of Gunduchi Patnaik and
another Vs. State of Orissa, wherein it is held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Documents citing
Gunduchi Patnaik And Anr. vs State Of Orissa on 26 September, 1984
Sukanta Behera vs State Of Orissa on 19 February, 1998
In the case of Gunduchi Patnaik (supra), P.W. 7. an eye-witness was examined about 13 days after the occurrence though Police was available in the occurrence village and that delay was taken into consideration besides other points.
Babulu Kundu vs State Of Orissa on 1 December, 1993
Reliance was also placed on 1984 C.L.R. (Cri) 345 (Gunduchi Patnaik and Anr. v. State of Orissa) where no disclosure had been made by the witness to the police for about thirteen days and no explanation had been furnished for such non-disclosure. It is true that a defect in investigation is not always automatically to culminate in throwing out of the prosecution case and acquittal of the accused and that unless the I.O. has been asked in the cross-examination regarding the defect, his evidence is not to be rejected only on account of the defect. Yet it has to be appreciated that where the defect in the investigation is so fundamental and strikes at a deeper root, the entire prosecution case thereby faulters and the Court may not rely upon and justifiably on the genuineness of the prosecution case unless plausible and acceptable explanation comes forth for the deficiency.
1