Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2010
On a bare
reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Haalesh (Supra), we find that the facts situation and evidences
in the said case were quite different and distinct. In this case, the
occurrence has taken place at the bathan of the deceased where not
only PW-1 and PW-3 were present, according to PW-1 and PW-3
their staff Thakur Harijan (PW-7) was also present at the place of
occurrence, there were a large number of workers. While PW-7
has not supported the prosecution case none of the workers have
been examined in this case. The learned trial court as well as this
Court find that the prosecution suppressed the initial information
on the basis of which Sanha was registered and then even as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1030 of 2013 dt.03-05-2024
25/25
statement of Phuleshar Bhar (PW-8) was recorded at 12:30 P.M.
and the investigation had started on that basis, but the police did
not register any FIR on the basis of the statement of PW-8. In the
present case, the FIR was registered at a much belated stage at
06:00 P.M. on 25.07.1991 on the basis of the fardebyan of PW-3.
Section 372 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bikkar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 1989
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits
that in this case the prosecution has proved that there were three
persons at the 'bathan'. PW-1 and PW-3 are eye witnesses to the
occurrence and they are injured witnesses, therefore, their
testimonies must be relied upon. According to him, the defence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1030 of 2013 dt.03-05-2024
9/25
could not take any contradiction in the statement of these two
witnesses. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the case of
Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi versus State of
Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1954/12 and
Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.
1303 of 2014, in the case of Bikkar Singh v. State of Punjab
reported in AIR 1989 SC 440 and in the case of Adya Singh v.
State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 SC 3011, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that conviction may be done
on the basis of two witnesses who were present inside the premises
where the occurrence had taken place.