Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Paras Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 12 January, 1999
In Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar
((1999) 2 SCC 126) it was held that if the
lapse or omission is committed by the
investigating agency or because of negligence
the prosecution evidence is required to be
examined de hors such omissions to find out
whether the said evidence is reliable or not.
The contaminated conduct of officials should
not stand on the way of evaluating the
Page 21 of 23
M.M.SALGAONKAR
::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 10:38:32 :::
(902) WP-3512-15 & ORS.DOC
evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed
mischief would be perpetuated and justice
would be denied to the complainant party.
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004
22. Before parting we must invite the attention of all concerned
particularly Mr.Nevagi to the following pertinent observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah
Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.1 :-
Section 64 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Karnel Singh vs The State Of M.P on 11 August, 1995
"5. In the case of a defective investigation
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 is designedly
defective. (Karnel Singh v. State of M.P.
((1995) 5 SCC 518).
1