Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 515 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Karamjit Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) on 26 March, 2003

Sri T V Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2022

31. But in the instant case, the accused was insisting PW-1 / Devarajamma to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her matrimonial house to provide her a job in Literacy Department. But there is no material to that aspect for proving the guilt against the accused and even there is no material relating to the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC for securing conviction. The Court must scrutinize the 35 evidence carefully and if there is acceptable evidence, it is the duty of the Court to render a conviction judgment against the accused. PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 are the official witnesses in the instant case and their evidence also requires to be scrutinized carefully. But the testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witnesses and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon. But the presumption that a person acts honestly, applies as much in favour of police personnel as much as other persons and this issue was also dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of KARAMJIT SINGH vs. STATE (AIR 2003 SC 1311).
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs : Rakesh on 5 December, 2012

In the light of the said judgment, the testimony of the police personnel cannot be discarded. The investigating officer SI Kuldeep Singh has mentioned that he requested 3­4 passersby to join the investigation but none of them agreed. The witness has stated that after receiving the information, he immediately reached the spot and apprehended the accused. Thus, it is apparent from his testimony that there was hardly any time with him to join a public person in FIR No. 339/08 12/9 investigation. The explanation tendered by him is plausible and his testimony cannot be brushed aside merely because of the said fact. The sealed case property was produced during the examination of PW­2 and it was found that seal of FSL was intact.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs State ( Air 2003 Sc 1311) Wherein Hon'Ble ... on 3 March, 2016

36. As per the judgment Karamjit Singh vs State ( AIR 2003 SC 1311)­ there is no necessity to examine public witness or for disproving the testimonies of police officials only on the ground that they are the police officials but in the present case, there is independent witness examined by the prosecution namely PW­9 Om Parkash, who was driver of vehicle ie Vikram and from that Vikram, contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. Here, it is important to mention that defense taken by the accused is that he was lifted from his house on 28/07/12 at about 1.30 a.m without mentioning any reason/rivalry between the accused and the police officials. As per the case of the prosecution, acting upon secret information received, raid was conducted near Monkey Bridge and in that raid, 28 29 contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused, while he was travelling in the vehicle ie Vikram and the accused was arrested in the present case. On one hand, defense has stated that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of mistaken identity in respect to the name Binod and Vinod. On the other hand, defense taken by the accused is that he was lifted from his house in midnight of 28/07/12. It is very difficult to understand any reason of accused being lifted by the police on 28/07/12 without there being any previous animosity or history against the accused, specially in the light of the fact that defense has not countered or challenged the recovery of ganja, as per secret information received from the spot. Only defense taken by the accused is that secret information was in respect to some Vinod Jha, whereas person arrested is Binod Kumar. This, in itself shows that ambiguous defense has been taken by the accused half heartedly.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs : Gian Chand @ Babu on 12 February, 2014

In the light of the said judgment, the testimony of the police personnel cannot be discarded. The initial investigation was done by ASI Ranbir Singh who has mentioned that he requested 3-4 passersby to join investigation but none of them agreed. The witness has stated that after receiving information, the police party immediately reached the spot and apprehended the accused. Thus, it is apparent from his testimony that there FIR No. 203/03 State Vs. Gian Chand @ Boby Page 7 of 8 was hardly any time with police officials to join a public person in investigation. The explanation tendered by them is plausible and their testimony cannot be brushed aside merely because of the said fact. The reluctance of the general public in joining the investigation cannot be ignored while appreciating the explanation tendered by the police for their failure to join an independent witness.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

12.08.88 Titled As Ajmer Singh vs State Of on 10 March, 2014

26. Further , contention of Ld Amicus Curiae has been that 22 23 testimony of police official is not reliable as no public witness was joined during raid despite there being availability of public witnesses. On this point, it is important to note that all the members of the raiding party ie PW­3 ASI Devender, PW­7 Ct Sohan Pal and PW­9 HC Rajinder have stated that they asked persons to join the investigation but all refused to join the investigation and due to paucity of time, no notice could be given to such public persons. Therefore, testimonies of police officials cannot be considered to be unreliable only because they are police officials. As in Karamjit Singh vs State ( AIR 2003 SC 1311) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Trikal Singh Etc. on 14 July, 2014

RELEVANT LAW Law relating to evidentiary value of police testimony 8­ The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds; Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next