State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Chhavi Lal on 28 August, 2017
When delay in lodging FIR is properly explained, prosecution case cannot be
discarded as laid in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhaakki Lal and Ors.16
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.44 seconds)Venkatesh @ Chandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2022
(e) We respectfully disagree with aforesaid observation of the Division
Bench. Merely because the trial court committed a mistake in marking both
admissible and inadmissible portions of a confessional statement, that cannot
be a ground to discard the entire statement which also contains admissible
portion U/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial court at a later stage or the
appellate court can accept the admissible portion of the statement leaving
aside the inadmissible portion. Instead, if the entire statement is discarded,
prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. Our view gets corroborated by
the judgment of Apex Court in Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of
Karnataka19. While deprecating the practice of marking the entire statement
of accused, the Apex Court in that case has taken only admissible portion of
the statement by observing thus:
1