Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)

Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 September, 2011

19. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only. The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 434 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984

In "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that "all the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereo-type statement of non availability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 3880 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Adil, Irfan And Abdul Tahir vs State Of U.P. on 19 April, 2008

21. There is nothing on record to show at what time the police personnel proceeded for patrolling duty. Strangely none of the witness could tell as to what time they proceeded for such patrolling. No DD entries have been placed on record to establish the departure and arrival of the said police officials on patrolling. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Pappu alias Irfan Vs State of UP,2005[1] JCC [Narcotics]31). As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under;
Allahabad High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 34 - V K Verma - Full Document
1