Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 311 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998
22)The prosecution has relied heavily on the recovered danda to contend
that the recovery thereof from the house of the accused Kamal
corroborated the claim of the complainant/injured PW1 Manohar and
PW2 Jitender. However, the iron rod Ex P1 purportedly used in the
commission of the offence has not been recovered from the spot as has
been testified to by PW5 Ct. Jal Singh as well as PW8 ASI Ram Singh.
PW5 Ct. Jal Singh has testified that the same was got recovered by the
accused Kamal Kant from the roof of his house. However, the factum
of the recovery of the danda itself has remained unproved as no
independent witness has been joined in the investigation at the time of
the alleged recovery as is evident from the perusal of the seizure memo
Ex PW5/C Ct. Jal Singh which does not bear the signatures of any
public witnesses and bears only the signatures of PW5 Ct. Jal Singh
and the IO/PW8 ASI Ram Singh as well as those of the accused.
Further, even PW5 Ct Jal Singh has testified that the daughter of the
accused Kamal was also present at the time of the alleged recovery of
the danda but she was not joined in the investigation. No explanation
has been furnished by any of the prosecution witnesses as to why two
FIR No. 431/2012
PS Vijay Vihar
U/s 323/341/34 IPC
State Vs Kamal Kant & Ors Page No. 9 of 13
or more respectable persons of the locality were not joined in the
investigation at the time of the recovery as required under Section 100
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The failure of the investigating
agency to join witnesses from the public especially when they are
available or their presence can reasonably be secured with minimum
efforts casts a doubt as to the authenticity of the version being put forth
by the investigating agency. (Reference made to Nanak Chand v The
State of Delhi, 1991 JCC 1 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court). The
omission to join independent witnesses, thus warrant an adverse
inference to be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that
the evidence if produced would have been unfavorable to the case of
the investigating agency/prosecution and thus, the prosecution has
failed to prove the recovery of the danda from the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.