Murugan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 8 February, 2022
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chhotan Sao and
Another Vs. State of Bihar8 has in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 held as
follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.69 seconds)Documents citing
Chhotan Sao & Anr vs State Of Bihar on 26 October, 2010
Sandeep Kumar vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 2 December, 2020
They had not run away. Reliance is placed
on the evidence of PW11-I.O. besides the evidence of
PW1. There was no basis to draw the inference which is
drawn on the basis that the body was found in the rear
portion of the car. He drew support from the Judgment
of this Court in Chhotan Sao and another v. State of
Bihar2.
Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2014
In Chhotan Sao & Another v. State of Bihar,[6] this Court was
dealing with a case involving Sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC. The
allegations were that the deceased was murdered by poisoning her. The
viscera report was not on record. There was no other evidence on record to
establish that the deceased was poisoned. This Court distinguished the
case before it from the facts of Bhupendra and while acquitting the accused
of the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC made the following pertinent
observations:
Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2014
In Chhotan Sao & Another v. State of Bihar,[6] this Court was
dealing with a case involving Sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC. The
allegations were that the deceased was murdered by poisoning her. The
viscera report was not on record. There was no other evidence on record to
establish that the deceased was poisoned. This Court distinguished the
case before it from the facts of Bhupendra and while acquitting the accused
of the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC made the following pertinent
observations:
Rabindra Nath De Sarkar vs Netai Chandra Adak & Ors on 24 June, 2015
In Chhotan Sao' Case (supra) Sri Lahiri points out
that the inadequacy of an investigation having failed to produce a vital
document or piece of evidence at the trial must be strongly dealt with
so that there is little chance of avoidable acquittals.
Unknown vs By Adv. Sri.Blaze K.Jose on 3 October, 2011
In the said
decision, the Apex Court very strongly in paragraph 22 highlighted the
earlier decision of the Apex Court in Chhotan Sao and Another v.
Crl.Appeal No.2074/2011 14
State of Bihar ( 2013 (15) SCALE 338), wherein also the apex court
expressed its anguish regarding the inadequacy of investigation, the
failure to discharge the responsibility on the part of the public
prosecutor and the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence
under Section 304 B. There also it can be seen that viscera report from
the forensic lab was not placed before the court. After highlighting the
said decision, the apex court wondered whether these lapses are the
result of inadvertence or they are a calculated move to frustrate the
prosecution. But the very same time, the honourable supreme court
highlighted the fact that the courts prime duty is to find out the truth. It
can be further seen that the supreme court, even though viscera reports
were not therein, dismissed the appeal which was preferred by the
accused therein. Thus, in this case it can be seen that viscera report is
not therein. But surely the unchallenged evidence of PW13 who
conducted the postmortem is on record. The postmortem certificate
also shows that death was due to poisoning. When death is proved as
due to poisoning, that fact need not be doubted. It can be treated as
proved.
Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 February, 2018
19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Chhotan Sao and
another v. State of Bihar 2 has held as under:-
1