Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)The U.P. State vs Murtaza Ali And Anr. on 3 April, 1961
14. In the light of above facts, the prosecution has failed to
discharge the onus placed upon it and so have failed to prove its case
beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to
Page 4/5
State Vs. Murtaza, FIR No. 424/13, PS OIA, u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 33 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
12. The prosecution has failed to examine any public witness
therefore, the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated
by an independent material witness. The witness that is examined by
the prosecution in the present case is police witness, who is interested
in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of
him being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be
ruled out. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as
unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any
public witness in the investigation and still no genuine and sincere
efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the
testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient
credence/reliability, unless it is corroborated by independent material
witness. In view of above discussion it is duly established that genuine
efforts were not made by the IO of the case to join the public witness.
The non joining of the public witness creates doubt in the story of the
prosecution as held in Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1987
CC 585 Delhi High Court.
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Bihar Industrial Area Devp vs Md.Murtaza Khan on 29 July, 2009
P.S. : OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA
STATE VS. MURTAZA
21.09.2015
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Murtaza on bail with his counsel.
1