Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Durgasetty @ Durgi vs The State on 10 September, 2018 cites

K.W. Ganapathy vs State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2002

20. The other decision relied on by the learned HCGP in the case of K.W. GANAPATHY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2002 Crl.L.J. 3867, also does not enure to the benefit of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In the said case, it is observed that, "the production of property which has evidentiary value during evidence is a part of a fair trial. 16 With the advanced technology, it is not necessary that the original of the property inevitably has to be preserved for the purpose of evidence in the changed context of times. The reception of secondary evidence is permitted in law." The said decision also was rendered under section 457 of Cr.P.C. It has been held therein that when there is a possibility of having a secondary evidence of said property, it is no longer necessary in law to insist that the property to be kept intact without alteration and non-alienation. The ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. As already discussed above, Ex.P4 cannot be considered as a secondary evidence. No mahazar is produced by the prosecution in proof of return of the valuable to the complainant. As a result, the prosecution has failed to produce either the primary evidence or the secondary evidence in proof of the alleged recovery of the gold ornaments so as to connect the said evidence to the accused.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - K S Rao - Full Document

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002

19. We have gone through the said decision. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the 14 guidelines in the matter of release of articles seized during the course of the investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the procedure to be followed while releasing the properties to the persons from whose possession, the said properties were seized during investigation. The said decision does not dispense with the production of the released articles at the time of trial. On the other hand, in para 12 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delineated the procedure and has specifically observed that while releasing the articles, a bond should be taken from the complainant that said articles would be produced if required at the time of trial. Further, section 457 of Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to prepare a detailed panchanama and also to get the photographs attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as the person to whom the accused has handed over. These directions are blissfully ignored by the trial court. The photograph at Ex.P4 is neither attested nor was it prepared at the time of release of the articles to the complainant. This document, on the face of it, indicates that the said photograph was a part of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the argument of the learned HCGP that the photograph at Ex.P4 15 could replace the production of the original articles before the Court cannot be accepted. That apart, PW.3 has not given her evidence with reference to Ex.P4. She has nowhere stated in her deposition that the articles depicted in Ex.P4 were either worn by the deceased at the time of the incident or that the said articles were returned to her by the court. Such factual aspects cannot be inferred or assumed by the court. In the absence of identification of the seized jewels, the same cannot be correlated to the deceased. Therefore, the non-production of the alleged robbed jewels and the failure of the prosecution to get the said articles identified through the prosecution witnesses so as to connect them to the accused renders the case of the prosecution highly vulnerable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21090 - Full Document
1