Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 33 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 52 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Hem Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 29 March, 2005
In the case of "Hem Raj v. State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2110, it has
been observed that :
"The fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even
an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the
prosecution case. Amongst the independent witness's one who was very much in the know of things
from the beginning was not examined by the prosecution. Nonexamination of independent witness by
itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of
the alleged eyewitnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual
occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness would assume
significance."
D.V. Shanmugham & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997
In the case of "D. V. Shanmugham v. State of A.P.", AIR 1997 SC
2583 it has been observed as under :
"It also appeared from the evidence of PW2 and PW8 that there were several other
people who witnessed the occurrence and they are not the residents of that locality. If such
independent witnesses were available and yet were not examined by the prosecution and only those
persons who are related to the deceased were examined then in such a situation the prosecution case
has to be scrutinised with more care and caution."
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
In the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration", 1989
Cr.LJ 127 Delhi, in which it was observed as follows :
"Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife,
there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he
did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was
present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there
would be no person present at a crucial time like 7.30 pm when there is a lot of rush of commuters
for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in
believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation.
At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they
refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness
even though number of them were present. No plausible from the side of the prosecution is
forthcoming for not joining the Independent witnesses in case of a serious nature like the present one.
It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the
police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to
join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by
itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of
the accused.''
Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984
In matter of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55,
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, it has been held that :
"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."
Massa Singh And Another vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1) ... on 3 December, 2008
In the case of "Massa Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 2000 (2) C.C. Cases
FIR No.134/2013 Page No.9 of 12
HC 11, conviction was set aside on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of
investigating officer to take assistance of independent witnesses to lend authenticity to
the investigation conducted by him. It was observed as under :
"The recovery has been effected from a public place. The Investigating Officer could
have taken the trouble to associate an independent witness to get the attestation of such independent
witness regarding the authenticity of the investigation conducted by him. This aspect of the case has
not been properly appreciated by the Court below."
Chanan Singh Son Of Kartar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 1971
In the case of "Chanan Singh Vs. State" 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H)
94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent
witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join
investigation was rejected as an afterthought.