Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2013 cites

Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2008

So far T.P.Singh is concerned, who could not have been identified by the Police in absence of his identity but during the trial he was identified by the witnesses an his alias name was also given by them and from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it appears that T.P.Singh @ Digvijay Singh was also a party to the committing offences and materials are sufficient to form a just opinion for prima facie case against him. The evidences are sufficient where the court has rightly called upon to stand the trial. So other witnesses are concerned, it is not required to be repeated again save and except that materials as stated hereinabove are sufficient for forming an opinion of likelihood of their conviction, the Court is justified for issuance of notice to the petitioners of this case. The evidence collected during the trial is not of weak character that the persons aforesaid cannot be convicted in the trial, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Suraj's case (supra) has opined that it is not so that the material collected may not lead to 10 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40800 of 2011 10 / 10 conviction of the aforesaid persons as the members of petitioners are more than five as alleged each of petitioners actively participated in the commission of the offence. It is also proper to deal with the argument of the petitioners that Ravindra Singh and his sons were living at Jamshedpur cannot be a ground that on the day of offence, they were not present and not actively participated in the offence as alleged. The plea of alibi can be taken by the petitioners at the proper stage by bringing proper evidence and court below will decide the pleas of alibi at the right stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 140 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1