Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.47 seconds)
Pawan Singh vs State & Ors. on 4 February, 2015 cites

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 8 March, 2006

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , the Court noticed the importance of the role of witnesses in a criminal trial. The importance and primacy of the quality of trial process can be observed from the words of Bentham, who states that witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. The Court issued a caution that in such situations, there is a greater responsibility of the court on the one hand and on the other the courts must seriously deal with persons who are involved in creating designed investigation. The Court held that: (SCC p. 398, para 42) ―42. Legislative measures to emphasise prohibition against tampering with witness, victim or informant have become the imminent and inevitable need of the day. Conducts which illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in proceedings before the courts have to be seriously and sternly dealt with. There should not be any undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the accused. That would be unfair, as noted above, to the needs of the society. On the contrary, efforts should be to ensure a fair trial where the accused and the prosecution both get a fair deal. Public interest in proper administration of justice must be given as much importance, if not more, as the interest of the individual accused. In this courts have a vital role to play.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 185 - A Pasayat - Full Document

C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010

In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567], the following discussion and conclusions are relevant which are as follows: (SCC p. 589, para 55) ―55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 633 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee And Sham Lal Shaw vs State Of West Bengal on 24 September, 1973

17. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) was a member, in Crl. Appeal No.605/2013, titled Sudhir Kumar versus State, decided on 2nd September, 2013, has held that when it is apparent that certain factual aspects have been held back and have not been brought on record creating grave suspicion, the Court must examine whether the lack of or improper investigation has resulted in incompleteness or uncertainty. If the investigation leave a number of queries unanswered and creates confusion, or ambiguity, conviction should not be ordered/sustained. However, in every case of defective investigation, an accused cannot be acquitted, if the Crla 929/2011 Page 14 of 27 reliable evidence produced, dehors the defective investigation, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In such matters, the accused cannot take advantage of defective investigation unless the ‗defective investigation' causes reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. In the present case, defective investigation has resulted in disappearance and loss of evidence. It would not negate and erase the evidence and material filed and relied upon by us. No prejudice and injustice is suffered by the appellant. The defective investigation it is apparent was at the behest and to help the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 44 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006

19. The aforesaid circumstances when read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, would complete the chain implicating and proving beyond doubt that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the aforesaid offence and is guilty of murder. The unnatural and homicidal death of Dimple had taken place in confines of her matrimonial home. In such cases when the prosecution establishes and discharges the initial burden that the offence was committed in the house and the accused was present at that time, the explanation of the accused as to how and why the occurrence took place assumes significance and is important. Accused then cannot keep quiet or offer no explanation meeting the incriminating material. When presence of an accused/appellant at the time of homicidal death is established and proved beyond doubt, the principle enshrined in section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 impels and requires an explanation from the accused/appellant as to the cause and the reason for the injury that caused loss of life. When no such explanation is forthcoming or explanation is found to be untrue, the said fact Crla 929/2011 Page 17 of 27 becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances making it complete (See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan versus State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 and other cases mentioned therein).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 968 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next