Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.24 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ashok vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2015
SOHEL MEHABOOB SHAIKH v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [(2009)12 SCC 588];
iv. ARVIND SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [(2001)6 SCC
407]; and
v. ASHOK V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2015)4
SCC 393].
III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED
ADDITIONAL SPP:
Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015
39. On careful perusal of the deposition of PW2-son of
the deceased and the accused, who is aged four years. The
evidence of PW2 remains unshakable by the prosecution and
accordingly, he was treated hostile by the prosecution. The
entire basis of the complaint (Ex.P1) and the evidence of PW1
stands on the version of PW2. PW1-complainant has not only
stated in the complaint Ex.P1 alleging that the accused
caused death of her daughter as well as she has deposed
before the Court that she came to know about the cause of
death of her daughter through PW2, but very strangely, the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 is totally in contradiction and
deposition of PW1 do not support the case of the prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused. In fact, the prosecution felt
that PW2 and PW5(CW6) are the eye-witnesses to the
43
incident. However, PW2 has not supported prosecution case
and has deposed that the accused was not present at the
time of the incident and so also, the prosecution has not
examined CW6-Dilshad Banu, who is apparently considered to
be eye-witness to the incident as per the deposition of PW1.
On an overall consideration of the evidence available on
record, in our view, it would be wholly unsafe to hold the
appellant-accused guilty of charge of murder of his wife
strangulating her with pillow MO1, and in that view of the
matter, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
while passing the impugned judgment and order of sentence
is liable to be set aside. Our view is fortified by the law
declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TOMASO
BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
reported in (2015)7 SC 178 wherein at paragraph 39 of the
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Dayal Singh & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal on 3 August, 2012
"39. It is a settled proposition of law recently
reiterated in the following cases viz. Dayal Singh And
Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 7 SCALE
165, Radhakrishna Nagesh vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 688, Umesh Singh vs. State
44
of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 360 that there is possibility of
some variations in the exhibits, medical and ocular
evidence and it cannot be ruled out. But it is not that
every minor variation or inconsistency would tilt the
balance of justice in favour of the accused. Where
contradictions and variations are of a serious nature,
which apparently or impliedly are destructive of the
substantive case sought to be proved by the
prosecution, they may provide an advantage to the
accused."
Radhakrishna Nagesh vs State Of A.P on 13 December, 2012
"39. It is a settled proposition of law recently
reiterated in the following cases viz. Dayal Singh And
Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 7 SCALE
165, Radhakrishna Nagesh vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 688, Umesh Singh vs. State
44
of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 360 that there is possibility of
some variations in the exhibits, medical and ocular
evidence and it cannot be ruled out. But it is not that
every minor variation or inconsistency would tilt the
balance of justice in favour of the accused. Where
contradictions and variations are of a serious nature,
which apparently or impliedly are destructive of the
substantive case sought to be proved by the
prosecution, they may provide an advantage to the
accused."
Jagdish Prasad Shastri vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 October, 1970
In the case of JAGDISH PRASAD v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in AIR 1994 SC 1251 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that where the testimony of
witnesses is clouded with grave suspicion and discrepancy,
particularly, recording of statement of witnesses and
conviction based on such testimony is not safe and in the
45
instant case, the statement of the PW1, PW5 and PW7 with
that of PW12 contradicts regarding death of deceased and
conducting investigation and creates a suspicion about the
involvement of the accused.
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 May, 2013
41. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJ KUMAR SINGH V.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 2013 SC 3150. At
paragraph 17 it is observed thus: