Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary ... on 31 October, 2007
15. There is another procedural error committed in
the investigation of this case which should be taken into
consideration. Copy of the FIR has been proved as Ex
PW2/B in which it has been mentioned that information
was received at P.S. at 7.20 p.m. and recorded in general
diary as DD No 23A which shows that DD was recorded
first and then FIR was recorded. First of all, FIR has to
be recorded and only then it is to be followed by a DD in
the daily diary register. But practice of the police in
recording DD first and then recording FIR is contrary to
the provisions of law as contained in section 154 of Code
13
of Criminal Procedure. This practice has been deprecated
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh vs State of
Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 441 where it has been held that
when any information has been received by the PS, if it
discloses commission of a cognizable offence, FIR has to
be straightway recorded. It was further held that practice
of the police official governed by Punjab Police Rules to
enter the information into daily diary of PS first and then
record the FIR is contrary to provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure inasmuch as provisions of Punjab
Police Rules do not override the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure. By this method police can easily
overcome the difficulty of anti dating and anti timing of
the FIR. After FIR has been recorded, DD to this effect
is required to be made in daily diary. Purpose of such
entry in daily diary is to ensure that FIR had actually been
recorded at the time given in the DD entry. Therefore, in
the present case, no reliance can be placed on the
assertion of the prosecution that FIR was recorded on
12.4.07 at 7.20 p.m. inasmuch as distance between place
14
of incident and PS is 1 K.M. as mentioned in the FIR,
rukka was sent at 7.05 p.m., Ct Sant Ram might have
taken time to reach PS, DD No 23A was recorded first
and then FIR was recorded. It does not appeal to the
reasons that all these proceedings could have been
completed within 15 minutes. Therefore, possibility of
whole of the proceedings having been conducted in the
PS can not be ruled out. These are some of the infirmities
which cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case
and it will be most unsafe to convict the accused on the
basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
State Of Rajasthan vs Daulat Ram on 23 August, 2005
In State of Rajasthan vs Daulat Ram AIR 1980
19
SC 1314, it was held that it was the duty of the
prosecution to prove that while in their custody, the
sample was not tampered with before reaching the public
analyst.
Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors vs State Of M.P on 16 November, 2004
14. It has also been argued that there were shops at
ISBT, there were taxi stand and was a busy place,
however, no efforts were made by the IO to join the
independent witness. Under the law, the court has to
presume that official acts are performed in due course of
law. If this argument is accepted, then Court will have to
adopt an approach of inbuilt suspicion in its mind as to
the integrity of police officials which is not a correct
approach. The testimony of police officials is to be
appreciated like any other witness. But it is rule of
caution that Court should scrutinise the testimony of
10
police witnesses with utmost care and caution to assure
itself of its credibility. The lack of cautious approach is
likely to cause miscarriage of justice. While
appreciating the genuine difficulties of the police officials
in joining independent witnesses our own Hon'ble High
Court in Munshi and others vs. State 20 (1981) DLT
(SN) 26 had observed that public generally hesitate to
associate with police therefore the police has to take help
of person known to them or the complainant.
Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze vs Narcotic Control Bureau on 15 December, 2004
In Subhash Chand Mishra vs State 2002(2) JCC
1379, it was held by their lordships that prosecution is
under an obligation to prove that the sample delivered to
CFSL was in the same condition and there was no
possibility of tampering with it. In Mohd Hasim vs State
( Delhi) 1999 ( 3) C.C. Cases DHC 149 and Eze Val
Okele @ Val Eze vs Narcotic Control Bureau 2005 1
AD ( Cr.) DHC 185, it has been held that prosecution is
bound to produce even link evidence that sealed pulandas
of case property from the time they were taken till they
were deposited in the malkhana and till they were
deposited in the FSL, the seal thereon was not tampered
with by examining all the witnesses who had handed the
sample. It was also held that if any link is missing, then it
can not be said that prosecution has ruled out the
possibility of sample being tampered with or changed and
accused would be entitled for acquittal. In view of these
20
authorities and above discussion, I am of the view that
on this very count, accused is entitled for benefit of
doubt.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Maulvi Hakim Mohd. Abul Fateh vs The Delhi Wakf Board on 19 July, 1995
In Subhash Chand Mishra vs State 2002(2) JCC
1379, it was held by their lordships that prosecution is
under an obligation to prove that the sample delivered to
CFSL was in the same condition and there was no
possibility of tampering with it. In Mohd Hasim vs State
( Delhi) 1999 ( 3) C.C. Cases DHC 149 and Eze Val
Okele @ Val Eze vs Narcotic Control Bureau 2005 1
AD ( Cr.) DHC 185, it has been held that prosecution is
bound to produce even link evidence that sealed pulandas
of case property from the time they were taken till they
were deposited in the malkhana and till they were
deposited in the FSL, the seal thereon was not tampered
with by examining all the witnesses who had handed the
sample. It was also held that if any link is missing, then it
can not be said that prosecution has ruled out the
possibility of sample being tampered with or changed and
accused would be entitled for acquittal. In view of these
20
authorities and above discussion, I am of the view that
on this very count, accused is entitled for benefit of
doubt.
State Of Kerala vs Mathew ( M. M. ) And Anr on 18 August, 1978
In other authority
reported as State vs. M.M. Methew AIR 1978 SC (1571)
it was held that evidence of police officials cannot be
branded as highly interested only on the ground that they
are interested in the success of their case.
1