Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.32 seconds)Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ram Bali vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 April, 2004
are mentioned. No doubt, there are discrepancies but these discrepancies, in our opinion, cannot put on so high a pedestal as to render the entire prosecution case as unworthy of reliance. If there was any mistake committed by the investigating officer in the preparation of the recovery memo the eyewitness account cannot be disbelieved. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Bali v. State of U.P. has held
In the case of a defective investigative the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation s designedly defective.
Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs State Of U.P. on 21 April, 1994
26. Learned Counsel has also submitted that as the names of the accused or the weapons carried by them and the names of the eyewitnesses had not been mentioned in the inquest report, it clearly showed that by the time the inquest report had been prepared viz. 8.30 a.m. on 15-3-1979, the prosecution was not sure about its case and the FIR had not come into existence, m support of this contention strong reliance has been placed on some observations made by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. SCC p. 195 in para 11 of the reports which read as under:
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Others vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2006
In the case of Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 1 SCC (Crl.) 661, the relevant part of observation runs to the effect that thus, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the purpose of holding an inquest is very limited viz. to ascertain as to whether a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. There is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, rimes of the accused or the names of the eyewitnesses or the gist of their statements, nor is it required to be signed by any eye witness.
Malkiat Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1991
In Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab , the Apex Court held that "it is not a rule of law that the memo should bear names with cause title of accused". The quintessence of what has been held is that the omission of names of the accused in the memos sent to the medical Officer is not evidence except as record of investigation. It is not a rule of law that the memo should bear names with cause title of accused. It is enough if the name of the injured is mentioned in the memo.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Sagar Yadav And Ors on 18 January, 1985
Another decision on the point is State of U.P. v. Ran Sagar Yadav AIR 1985 SC 416 in which the Apex Court substantially observed that discrepancy in petty details which befog real issue and minor contradictions which are inevitable when the story of a grave crime is narrated are not material. Be that as it nay, the discrepancy in the statement cannot be over emphasised and it can well be overlooked as a mere faux-pas of an unsophisticated rustic lady having no clue about the legal intricacies.
Sunil Kumar And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 January, 2005
In the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan , the Apex Court had observed as under: The "common object" of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arm;, carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It was further observed that An object is entertained in the human mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and, like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act which the person commits and the result therefrom. Though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at the time of or before or after the occurrence.
Munivel vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2006
In the case of Munivel v. State of T.N. . The Apex Court has held as under: