Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Santa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 August, 1976
iii. On account of failure of P.W. 3 to point out the
generator, source of identification i.e. bulb to the I.O. who reached the
place of occurrence within half an hour of the occurrence.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2010 dt.-01-03-2013 35
iv. As per evidence of P.W. 3 his brother Sunil Kumar
Singh was injured/shot dead from a distance of 10-15 feet, which does
not appear to be correct in view of the evidence of P.W. 8 the doctor
who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sunil Kumar Singh
as therefrom it appears Sunil Kumar Singh suffered two charred
injuries with inverted margin on his chest, which is not possible if the
shots have been fired from a distance of 10-15 feet. Reliance in this
connection has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 Supreme
Court 526.
State Of Orissa vs Mr. Brahmananda Nanda on 31 August, 1976
28. Having analyzed the aforesaid submission, it appears
that P.W. 13 was examined by the police officer at Piro Hospital
within 5-6 days of the occurrence where he was attending on his
injured brother Bimlesh Pandey @ Bablu Pandey who later
succumbed to his injuries did not disclose the name of the assailants
to the police officer, which fact he himself admitted in paragraphs 33,
35, which is also confirmed by P.W. 14 in paragraph 87 of his
evidence. P.W. 13 having not disclosed the name of any of the
assailants of his brother before police who have been named by him
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2010 dt.-01-03-2013 44
for the first time in court after 12 years of the occurrence, in such
circumstances, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda, AIR
1976 Supreme Court 2488, we choose not to rely on the evidence of
P.W. 13.
Arjun Marik vs State Of Bihar on 2 March, 1994
From the aforesaid evidence of
P.Ws. 2, 5, 6 and 14, it is evident that the name of the assailants of the
10 deceased and one injured was not known to P.Ws. 2, 5, 6 and
others including the informant P.W. 3, although fardbeyan stood
recorded by P.W. 14 on 11.5.1998 at 8.15 P.M., formal F.I.R. drawn
in the same night at 9 P.M. leading to arrest of 41 residents of village
Nagri including appellant Sudarshan Pandey and Anil Kumar Singh
during the night between 11-12.5.1998 until 8.30 A.M. and 17
residents of village Bhairodih thereafter from their residence.
Prosecution party was unaware about the name of the assailants is
also evident from the fact that the delay caused in receipt of the
formal F.I.R. in the court of C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara on 13.5.1998 is
not explained by the prosecution, though distance between
Charpokhari P.S. and court of C.J.M., Bhoujpur at Ara is 40
kilometers and transport is always available for commuting between
Charpokhari and Ara, yet it took more than 36 hours for the formal
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2010 dt.-01-03-2013 49
F.I.R. to reach the court of C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara. Placing reliance
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Marik
and others Vs. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court
Cases 372 it is held that delay in sending the F.I.R. leads us to
conclude that the fardbeyan has been recorded, F.I.R. drawn much
later than the date and time as shown in the two documents. The
residents of village Nagri, Bhairodih arrested during the night
between 11-12.5.1998 and in the morning of 12.5.1998 respectively
from their residence were kept in Nagri Maidan and produced before
the C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara on 14.5.1998 without there being any
explanation for such delay in production. Aforesaid delayed receipt of
formal F.I.R. and production of the accused in the court of C.J.M. is
indicative of the fact that the prosecution was not sure about the
identity of the assailants though fardbeyan/ formal F.I.R. stood
recorded/drawn on 11.5.1998 at 8.15, 9 P.M. respectively and arrest
made during the night between 11-12.5.1998 and morning of
12.5.1998 from the residence of the arrestee.
Rattiram & Ors vs State Of M.P.Tr.Insp.Of Police on 17 February, 2012
27. Learned counsel for the State and the informant
submitted that notwithstanding the aforesaid infirmities in the
prosecution evidence, it is clear that the assailants have been
identified by the informant P.W. 3 who has stated in paragraph 26 of
his evidence that he had no enmity with any one and that he had seen
all the accused persons resorting to indiscriminate firing and with
reference to such evidence learned counsel placing reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2010 dt.-01-03-2013 43
others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 2 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 227, paragraphs 27, 42 submitted that in a case
involving an unlawful assembly with a very large number of persons
there is no rule of law which states that there cannot be any
conviction on the testimony of a sole eye witness, unless the court is
of the view that the testimony of the sole eye witness is not reliable.
In the instant case, trial court has not relied upon the evidence of
P.Ws. 1, 12 and has discarded the evidence of P.W. 4 as he was not
available for cross examination. P.Ws. 2, 5, 7 became hostile, P.W. 6
injured, though admitted the occurrence but claimed not to have
identified the assailants this Court should place reliance on the
positive evidence of P.Ws. 3, 13 and placing reliance on such
evidence confirm the reference and dismiss the appeals.
1