Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sadhu Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2001
In the case of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Haryana" 2000 (2) CC Cases
HC 73 it was observed as under :
"During the trial when the case property was produced namely the components of the
still, there was no identify mark or chit on the case property to indicate that it related to the alleged
recovery pertaining to the petitioner. There was no FIR No. or even chit placed on such a property.
When such is the situation, the said property could be used in each and every case against anybody.
There has to be proper identification of the property."
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
FIR No.376/2003 Page No.7 of 11
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.''
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
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
FIR No.376/2003 Page No.8 of 11
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.
Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996
In matter of "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors." 1996,
JCC 07, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been observed :
"in a case, where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the
valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of
formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."
Datu Ram vs State on 25 January, 1996
In the case of "Datu Ram Vs. State" 1996 1 AD (Delhi) 52, it has been
held that all the links starting from the seizure of sample till the same reaches the
hands of public analyst must be proved to conclude that the seals remained intact.
Dhanpat vs Punjab State Through Collector And Ors. on 30 August, 1996
In the case of "Dhanpat Vs. State of Punjab" 2000 (1) CC Cases HC
52, it has been held that in the absence of any link evidence that the property
deposited in the malkhana remained intact till brought before the Court, accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt.