State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jagdish on 22 March, 2010
14. In the instant matter, IO and other police official have
submitted that IO had requested some passersby/residents to
join the investigation. However, no notice was served to
public persons who refused to join the investigation. It is
note worthy that I.O. had not made any serious endeavour to
join the passersÂby in the investigation of the case. Also as
per rukka IO did not serve written notice to the passersby
who refused to join the police proceedings. At least in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, IO could have
very well served the passersÂby with notice in writing
FIR no. 329/10 State vs. Jagdish
PS Amar Colony Page 7 of 11
requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face
action u/s 187 IPC in as much as in the present case there
was no possibility of accused escaping his apprehension /
arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said
time, accused stood already apprehended by the police.
Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for
joining independent public witnesses in the proceedings
when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the
prosecution in view of the following case laws.