Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.74 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999
In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy this Court occasioned to
consider the similar question of defective investigation as to whether
any manipulation in the station house diary by the investigating
officer could be put against the prosecution case. This Court, in para
19, held as follows: (SCC p. 720)
‘19. But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not
genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this
case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and
acceptable, should the court be influenced by the machinations
demonstrated by the investigating officer in conducting
investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can
be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary
area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of
the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the
probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the
investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the
evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it.
Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the
investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have
predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the
[pic]action taken by the investigating officers. The criminal
justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by
the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the
court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the
occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the
investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case.’
Ram Bali vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 April, 2004
In Ram Bali v. State of U.P. the judgment in Karnel Singh v. State
of M.P. was reiterated and this Court had observed that: (Ram Bali
case15, SCC p. 604, para 12)
‘12. … In case of defective investigation the court has to be
circumspect [while] evaluating the evidence. But it would not be
right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the
defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the
investigation officer if the investigation is designedly
defective.’