Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.42 seconds)Aher Raja Khima vs The State Of Saurashtra on 22 December, 1955
It was observed in
Aner Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra : AIR 1956 SC
217 that the presumption that a person acts honestly and
Crl. A No.917/2009 Page 5 of 20
legally applies as much in favour of police officers as of others.
It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police
officers. Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect
their evidence on oath without good and sufficient ground
thereof.
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh on 10 December, 1999
In State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh : 1999 X AD
(SC) 29, the accused made a disclosure statement that dead
body was kept concealed in the fields and he would take out
and produce the same. The following observations made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the implication of
such a statement are relevant:
Virender Kumar @ Gara vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2000
In Virender Kumar Gara Vs. State : 2001 III AD
(Delhi) 319, a Division Bench of this court was of the view that
the fact that the accused absconding immediately after the
incident was a strong factor to prove his guilt.
Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra (1) on 10 August, 1994
In Amrit Lal
Someshwra Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra : AIR 1994 SC
2516, the appellant who was employed as a domestic servant
was found absconding after murder of his employer. It was
held to be an incriminating circumstance against him.
State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960
In
State of UP Vs. Deoman Upadhyay : 1960 Cri.L.J. 1504, the
appellant, who had also threatened the accused, was found
absconding after her death. It was held that his having
threatened the deceased and his absconding immediately after
the death of the deceased by violence, lent very strong support
to the case of the prosecution.
Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 December, 2000
In Gura Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan : 2000 IX
AD (SC) 299, Supreme Court rejected the contention that in
the absence of report regarding origin of the blood, the trial
court could not have been convicted the appellant.
Tahir vs State (Delhi) on 21 March, 1996
8. We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7
Ct.Surender and PW-20 Insp.Rajender Malik regarding the
disclosure statement made by the appellant while in police
custody, production of the knife Ex.P-1 by him from under
stone and brick pieces lying in the plot near his house and
seizure of bloodstained clothes from him. The appellant does
not claim any enmity or ill-will between him and either of
these two witnesses. The testimonies of these witnesses could
not be assailed during cross-examination and no material
discrepancy in their testimonies has been brought to our
notice. Their testimonies cannot be rejected merely because
they happen to be police officers. As observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tahir Vs. State : (1996) 3 SCC 338, no
infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely
because they belong to the police force.