Matajog Dobey vs H. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal) on 31 October, 1955
The necessity may reveal itself
in the course of the progress of the case [see observations
in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari].
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (2.95 seconds)Dhannjay Ram Sharma vs M.S. Uppadaya And Ors. on 11 March, 1960
50.Furthermore, in Dhannjay Ram Sharma v. M.S. Uppadaya and Others
reported in AIR 1960 SC 745, it was clarified that the mere fact that an
opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official duty is not
such a connection of the offence with the performance of such duty, so as
to justify even remotely the view that the acts complained of are within the
scope of the application of Section 197 CrPC.
Parvat @ Parvat Singh And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 January, 2020
77.The statements of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively recorded
earlier by the IO at Dakshin, Firozabad during the course of his
investigation on 23.01.2008 and later by the SHO of the Murar Police
Station, D.S. Khushawa on 12.02.2008, under Section 161 CrPC, are the
only pieces of evidence that have been adduced before us for our
consideration. Those statements reveal that – (a) amongst the two panchas
of arrest and seizure namely, Shailendra Singh and Triloki Gaur in the
alleged false second case i.e., Case Crime No. 967 of 2007, Triloki Gaur
was the former driver of the respondent no. 1, (b) the respondent no. 1 had
arrived at the Murar Police Station shortly after the alleged arrest of Ashok
Dixit and had conversed with the SHO of the Murar Police Station, D. S.
Khushawa, (c) the respondent no. 1 also had a conversation with the person
arrested by the accused respondents, and (d) the respondent no. 1 had asked
the SHO of the Murar Police Station, D.S. Khushawa, to release the arrested
person on bail stating that he was his relative. However, it is settled law that
a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC does not constitute
substantive evidence and can only be utilized for the limited purpose of
proving contradictions and/or omissions as envisaged under Section 145 of
the Evidence Act, 1872. This has been laid down in a catena of decisions
Page 71 of 77
including in Parvat Singh and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in (2020) 4 SCC 33 which observed as follows:
1