Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)
Mahesh Parbatbhai Surela Koli vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2025 cites

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 October, 2022

We may refer the language of Section 27 which says that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused of any offence, in police custody and if the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered, the said confession may be presumed to be true. Thus, in the facts of present case, the evidence of discovery as relied by the prosecution is not reliable and trust worthy as the alleged weapon is found in an open and accessible place and direct link between the accused statement and his exclusive knowledge of the weapon's concealment is severed. The another infirmities we have found in Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:06:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2731/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined the prosecution case on the admissibility of disclosure statement made during the discovery and recovery. The witnesses of discovery panchnama Exh.173 and the I.O. PW:38 failed to prove the contents of the panchnama as mandated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramanand vs. State of U.P. (2022) Livelaw SC 843. The Supreme Court has emphasized that, the contents of discovery panchnama must be proved by the prosecution before accepting the evidence of discovery and there is an obligation on the part of I.O. to prove the contents of discovery panchnama. In the present case, upon careful examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, neither the panchas, nor the I.O. have deposed the exact statement and/or words uttered by the accused on the aspect of discovery of facts and recovery of weapon. In view of the settlement position of law and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case, the evidence of discovery in the form of disclosure statement and recovery of weapon at the instance of accused-appellant is not proved and established and the same cannot be read in evidence against the accused.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 54 - Cited by 73 - Full Document
1   2 Next