Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)
State vs . Manoj on 7 January, 2013 cites

Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984

In case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under:­ "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused". "6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh, PW­2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium 07.01.2013 Page 10 of 14 of Pages FIR No. 539/2003 P.S.: Gokalpuri U/s: 25/55/59 of Arms Act & 103 of D.P. Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 3880 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Ripen Kumar vs Department Of Customs on 12 October, 2000

18. Moreover the testimony of PW­1 & PW­3 cannot be read in evidence as their examination in chief was never completed and the incomplete deposition by the witnesses are no evidence in the eyes of law and therefore cannot be used for the purpose of proving any particular fact. I am enlightened by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Ripen Kumar Vs. Department of Customs" cited as 2001 Cr.L.J. 1288. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for easy reference:­ "9. ...... This observation of the Learned ASJ is contrary to the well understood expression of the word "evidence". The words "all statements" include the examination­in­chief as well as cross examination and subject to the permission re­examination also. It is only when the witness is permitted to be cross examined that the credibility of the witness can be looked into. The emphasis is on the fact that the witness had been cross examined fully. Only thereafter the evidence given by a witness in judicial proceedings is relevant for the purpose of proving a particular fact...".
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 141 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document
1