Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shaikh Afsar Sk Habib on 8 January, 2016
In the
ANKUR
present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not PANGHAL
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
Cr. Case No. 2724/2017 State vs. Shekh Afsar Ali Page 8 of 9 Date: 2023.05.15
15:34:39 +05'30'
discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offences in
question and identity of accused person and thus, the accused
person is entitled to benefit of doubt.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972
18. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused person are entitled
to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of
the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2013
15. The main witness of the prosecution has turned
hostile in the present case on the point of identity of accused
person. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence
of hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim,
"false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With
respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was
observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs.
State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996
Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr.
1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable
time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal
completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial
culminating in conviction.