Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.03 seconds)
State vs . on 18 January, 2012 cites

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005

69 Thus, in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court the report Session Case No.67/10 42/50 43 prepared by PW13/A cannot be taken into consideration because PW29/IO of the case has obtained the thumb impression of accused Krishan Kumar during investigation without permission of the court. 70 But the prescription slip Ex.PW12/A can be taken into consideration as the same has been duly proved by PW12 Dr. S.K. Gupta. It is significant to note that no suggestion has been put to PW12 by ld. Counsels for accused Krishan Kumar to the effect that accused Krishan Kumar did not get any treatment from him and did not receive any injury on the four fingers of his right hand and ring finger of left hand. It is significant to note that the accused Krishan Kumar has been examined by PW12 on the early morning of 15.5.10 i.e at about 6 AM. It is further significant to note that accused Krishan Kumar had gone to Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW12) alongwith his brother­in­law (Jija)namely, Raj Kumar. It is further significant to note that said treatment slip Ex.PW12/A has been recovered by the police from the house of brother­in­law of accused Krishan Kumar namely, Raj Kumar, when the police party went to the house of Raj Kumar in search of accused Krishan Kumar. I am of the considered view that testimony of PW29 and other recovery witnesses cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that he did not join the public witnesses and did not obtained the search warrant from the court. 71 In State(NCT of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu, (2005)11 SCC Session Case No.67/10 43/50 44 600 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "there is no such inflexible proposition of law that in the absence of independent witnesses being associated with search, the seizure cannot be relied upon. In the absence of independent witnesses during seizure operations investigating officers' evidence need not always be disbelieved. Of course, closer scrutiny of evidence is what is required. Having regard to the fact situation in the present case, the police officers cannot be faulted for not going in search of the witnesses in the locality. There is no law that the evidence of police officials in regard to seizure ought to be discarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 1292 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 January, 2008

84 In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that all the incriminating evidence against accused Krishan Kumar and Anil have been cogently and firmly established by the prosecution. All the incriminating circumstances are of definite tendency and are pointing out towards the guilt of the accused person. All the circumstances cumulatively form a chain so complete with the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused persons and none else. The circumstantial evidence against accused persons is complete and incapable of any explanation of any other hypothesis than that of their guilt. The evidence is not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also is inconsistent with their innocence. I am of the considered view that all the ingredients as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Session Case No.67/10 49/50 50 Court in "Arun Bhanudas Pawar V. State of Maharashtra's case are fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved the case of murder against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Krishan Kumar and Anil are convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 45 - L S Panta - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Goel Etc vs U.P.State Industrial Dev.Corpn.Ltd.& ... on 8 July, 2010

67 An opportunity to cross­examine the witness has been given to ld. Counsel for accused Anil but he did not avail of that opportunity. 68 In Rakesh Kumar V. State 2004(1)JCC 110 wherein it was held by Hon'ble High Court that specimen handwriting of the accused for comparison by expert cannot be taken without permission of the Court. It was also held that such signatures or thumb impression taken during investigation by police without permission of Court cannot be used during trial and expert report also based on such signatures of thumb impression could not be made use of during trial."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 173 - A Alam - Full Document
1   2 Next