Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 211 (3.34 seconds)
Documents citing State Of A.P vs S. Rayappa & Ors on 14 February, 2006

State vs . Muzmmel Ahmad @ Musa on 3 June, 2023

15. It is a well settled proposition that nonjoining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. This lapse on the part of prosecution casts serious doubt as to whether any sincere efforts were made by the prosecution to join public witnesses in the proceedings. This court observed from the above testimonies of PW5 and PW6 that, despite the sincere effort of the IO, no public person join the investigation. Moreover, this court concurred with the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex court in State of State of A.P. vs. S.Rayappa & Ors. (2006) (4) SCC 512, that, public persons are very reluctant to join the investigation and in absence of any independent witness, prosecution need to rely upon the witnesses who are relative or friend of the victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Jai Parkash on 21 September, 2023

17. This court is concurred with the view laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in State of State of A.P. vs. S.Rayappa & Ors. (2006) (4) SCC 512, that in today's scenario public person avoiding themselves to indulge in criminal proceeding because it's lengthy trial and they suffered a lot during the same. In that case, it became very difficult for the investigating agency and for the prosecution to cite and examine the public or independent witness in a criminal trial. However, there is no straight jacket formula to reject the testimony of the police witnesses and complainant in the absence of any independent witness despite that the testimonies of these witnesses corroborate with the other oral and documentary evidences.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganga Prasad vs Munna Lal & Others on 21 December, 2017

The plaintiff/appellant has tried to put force on the point that the attesting witnesses have been disbelieved by the trial court as they were either friend or relatives of the beneficiary of the Will. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. S. Rayappa and others (Supra) has held that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness.
Allahabad High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 4 - R R Awasthi - Full Document

State vs Shri Ram Mishra on 27 September, 2014

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V. S. Rayappa and ors (2006) SCC 512, Hon'ble Supreme Court has commented upon the reasons for reluctance of public persons to join as witnesses in the criminal trials because criminal cases keep dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They were being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they were subjected to lengthy cross examination. In my view, since the testimonies of both the injured and their companion Sh. Lotan are trustworthy and free from any blemish, it will not affect the case of the prosecution, if no other public witness has been involved in the investigation of the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No. 35/11 State vs . Emeka Paul & Anr. on 3 September, 2015

In the case of State of A.P. Vs S. Rayappa & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 512. Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the reason for reluctance of public persons to join as witness in criminal cases. In para No.7 of the report, it was observed as under:­ "On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross­examination."
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sachin Kumar Singhraha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2016

48. Now, we proceed to consider the aforesaid submissions. Upon the perusal of cross-examination of Pramod Singh (PW-15), we find that he was not cross- examined on the point why he had given preference to recovery of the school bag over the recovery of the dead body of deceased. To our mind, if he had been cross- examined on the aforesaid point, he would have certainly (31) Criminal Reference No.05/2015 Criminal Appeal No. 2303/2015 explained the reasons on account of which he preferred the recovery of school bag first. Under the circumstance, we do not find his conduct unusual. True is that in the disclosure statement, it is mentioned that there is only an underwear on the person of the deceased, whereas her photographs Articles A/5 and A/6 show that her dead body was recovered in her full school uniform. To our opinion, the said discrepancy is not material. It is true that the witnesses of the disclosure statement and the recovery memos are close relatives of the deceased. The Supreme Court has observed in para 9 of its decision in State of A. P. Vs. S. Rayappa (2006 (4) SCC 512) that it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all, they are subjected to lengthy cross- examinations. In such a situation, the only natural witnesses available to the prosecution would be the relative witnesses. A relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being in close relation to the deceased he will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real (32) Criminal Reference No.05/2015 Criminal Appeal No. 2303/2015 culprit to escape him unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of a relative witness should be examined cautiously.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Suresh vs State Of U.P. on 17 November, 2015

PW-2 Yogesh Kumar husband of the victim has stated that his wife had lodged another case under Section 376 I.P.C. in which one of the accused was Satpal Singh is accused who is also accused in the present case. This witness has further admitted that on 27.08.2014 when he was called for evidence, he was confined in jail and he was brought from jail to give evidence. He was detained in jail under Section 376 I.P.C. and in that case witness Lavkesh and the victim Brajbala were also accused and in the case against the victim, her husband and Lavkesh, the accused Ramveer who is brother of the accused Suresh is a witness. This witness corroborates the case of the defence by admitting that on 08.05.2013, he had assaulted his parents. After which they went to the police station. His parents were bleeding but this witness and his wife did not go to the police station. This witness Yogesh PW-2 has also admitted that cases are pending against the witness Lavkesh for encroaching upon the land of the Land Management Committee. What else is needed. This witness has specifically stated that Lavkesh is an advocate and he influenced the victim and her husband to lodge this false report.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Pandya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next