Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 362 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992

State vs . Ram Singh Etc on 6 October, 2012

(13)The testimony of PW4 Mahesh is not disclosing any fact in respect of the facts of the present case in hand. The present trial is not pertaining to the theft committed at shop no. 675, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi or any of the property involved in that theft. Otherwise, there is not even any trace of the particulars of case in judicial record. No original FIR or any of the documents of the case registered in respect of these offences from the concerned Police Station or from concerned Court have been called. No witness to prove any of the report of the commission of offence in the shop of PW3 Mahesh is produced or cited as witnesses. Even otherwise, this witness deposed that on 20-02-1995, one Anil from PS Rajender Nagar has visited his shop and seen the FIR and accused Ram Singh and Jasbir were brought on his shop on 23-02 -1995. In such circumstances, it has been highly suspicious that the factum of theft or any offence at the shop of PW3 is discovered to the Police at P.S. Rajender Nagar on the disclosure statement made by accused Ram Singh or Jasbir within the meaning of S-27 of Indian Evidence Act. The articles are also stated by the witnesses to be seized and the memos prepared at P.S. The witness has been unable to show any document to show himself as the owner of the property seized. Articles are also not bearing the seal of Page 15of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc the witness. No receipt of purchase of these articles or its duplicate is produced. No independent person was called at the time of affecting the recovery of the articles. PW7 Ct Virender Singh could not answer the time, place, and location of house or of room from where the articles are alleged to be recovered. Similarly, PW 8 and PW9 could not answer the material particulars for recovery. PW3 deposed that the seal with which articles were seized is till date in his possession on the contrary PW9 IO deposes that PW3 returned the seal o the very same day in the evening.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dukhan Kahar @ Dukhan Ram Kahar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2021

108. The discussions made above make it abundantly clear that dock identification of the appellant by these witnesses after 15 years of the occurrence is itself based on circumstances, which make it hard to believe that the witnesses were favourably situated so as to recognize the appellant at a time of darkness where no source of identification has been pointed out and also in a situation where witnesses faced with the gravest danger were first and foremost preoccupied with finding places of shelter where they could be well concealed from the perpetrators. The dock identification was not preceded by any previous identification, which could bolster the identification of the appellant in court. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was known to the prosecution witnesses from before rather there is evidence that the appellant is the resident of a different village failing under jurisdiction of a different police station. As seen above, the occurrence had taken place in village Senari, which falls under the jurisdiction of Karpi Police Station whereas the appellant is a resident of village Kutubpur, which falls under the jurisdiction of Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2017 dt.21-05-2021 81/88 Kurtha Police Station The witnesses examined in the case have not whispered a word about their previous acquaintance with the appellant. Under such circumstance, the judgments of the Supreme Court on which the State has placed its reliance are of no help. The identification of the accused for the first time in court after a long gap of time from the date of occurrence of a person not known to have been familiar to the witnesses has not been regarded by the Supreme Court as being safe to sustain conviction in Mulla & Anr. (Supra) Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (Supra), Vaikuntam Chandrappa and Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (Supra) and George & Ors vs State of Kerala (Supra).
Patna High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Dukhan Kahar @ Dukhan Ram Kahar on 21 May, 2021

108. The discussions made above make it abundantly clear that dock identification of the appellant by these witnesses after 15 years of the occurrence is itself based on circumstances, which make it hard to believe that the witnesses were favourably situated so as to recognize the appellant at a time of darkness where no source of identification has been pointed out and also in a situation where witnesses faced with the gravest danger were first and foremost preoccupied with finding places of shelter where they could be well concealed from the perpetrators. The dock identification was not preceded by any previous identification, which could bolster the identification of the appellant in court. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was known to the prosecution witnesses from before rather there is evidence that the appellant is the resident of a different village failing under jurisdiction of a different police station. As seen above, the occurrence had taken place in village Senari, which falls under the jurisdiction of Karpi Police Station whereas the appellant is a resident of village Kutubpur, which falls under the jurisdiction of Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2017 dt.21-05-2021 81/88 Kurtha Police Station The witnesses examined in the case have not whispered a word about their previous acquaintance with the appellant. Under such circumstance, the judgments of the Supreme Court on which the State has placed its reliance are of no help. The identification of the accused for the first time in court after a long gap of time from the date of occurrence of a person not known to have been familiar to the witnesses has not been regarded by the Supreme Court as being safe to sustain conviction in Mulla & Anr. (Supra) Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (Supra), Vaikuntam Chandrappa and Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (Supra) and George & Ors vs State of Kerala (Supra).
Patna High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Ranjit Mondal And Sajal Barui And Etc. vs State on 31 January, 1997

31. As has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment (State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh), it is trite law that the attention of the accused must be specifically invited to inculpatory pieces of evidence or circumstances laid on record with a view to giving him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. imposes a heavy duty on the Court to take great care to ensure that the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused and his response solicited. The words "shall question him" clearly bring out the mandatory character of the clause and cast an imperative duty on the Court and confer a corresponding right on the accused to an opportunity to offer his explanation for such incriminating material appearing against him. It is, therefore, true that the purpose of the examination of the accused under Section 313 is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating material which has surfaced on record.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Shivaji Anandrao Chede on 27 June, 2002

We noticed from one of the photographs brought on record that the upper lip of the deceased was broken. It is, therefore, evident that the smothering the accused resorted to was not only continuous and was resisted by the deceased with equal force for her survival. In that process, the injuries of her nails were caused on the person of the accused. The admissions so made by the accused could not be discarded and they ought to be taken into consideration for convicting the accused. We have no doubt in our mind that this is an additional ground to convict the accused apart from our finding that even in the absence of such an admission the accused was the author of Nirmala's murder in view of the burden cast on him to provide explanation under Section 106 of the Evident Act. The inculpatory statement as made was not in reply to a question and the accused volunteered to set such an elaborate admission which can be safely relied upon to convict him in view of the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh (supra) and State of U. P. v. Lakhmi (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document

Bachesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2021

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (Supra), at para 25, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the "(i) identification for the first time after a lapse of considerable time in Court or (ii) identification at a test identification parade in the case of total strangers, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of witnesses who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court."
Patna High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

State Ofharyana vs Ishwar Singh And Ors on 20 January, 2020

24. We are of the view that, under Section 313 51 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 12:27:08 ::: CRA-D-234-DB of 2004 -52- statement, if the accused admits that from the evidence of various witnesses, four persons sustained severe bullet injuries by the firing by the accused and his associates, that admission of guilt in Section 313 statement cannot be brushed aside. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700 held that since no oath is administered to the accused, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC will not be evidence stricto sensu and the accused, of course, shall not render himself liable to punishment merely on the basis of answers given while he was being examined under Section 313 CrPC. But, sub-section (4) says that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Budhan Yadav And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2021

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (Supra), at para 25, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the "(i) identification for the first time after a lapse of considerable time in Court or (ii) identification at a test identification parade in the case of total strangers, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of witnesses who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court."
Patna High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Bachesh Kumar Singh And Ors on 21 May, 2021

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (Supra), at para 25, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the "(i) identification for the first time after a lapse of considerable time in Court or (ii) identification at a test identification parade in the case of total strangers, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of witnesses who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court."
Patna High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 5 - A K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next