Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anjan Kumar Sarma vs State Of Assam on 23 May, 2017
33. The Investigating Officer in his evidence has
stated that he has seized a piece of the auto rickshaw
during the course of investigation. But he has not stated
anything about any investigation done by him with
reference to the auto rickshaw in which the accused and
deceased traveled on that particular day. Though he has
stated that he has not examined the auto rickshaw driver,
but nothing has been stated in the cross-examination or
in the examination-in-chief as to what efforts actually he
has made to ascertain about the said auto rickshaw
belonging to whom and who was the driver of the auto
rickshaw on that particular day. In our opinion auto
rickshaw driver is the proper person to actually say what
exactly happened on that particular date and he was the
person actually last seen the accused and deceased
together in the auto rickshaw even according to the case
39
of the prosecution. Therefore, it is not that immediately
after they left Gurunanak Jhara immediately the incident
happened. Thereafter also according to the prosecution
the accused and deceased were seen by PW-1 and the
driver of the auto rickshaw but said evidence is not
available to the prosecution. Therefore, in this regard it is
worth to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Anjan Kumar Sarma and others vs. State of Assam
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 359 wherein the Apex Court at
paras-19, 20, 23 to 25 has summed up the circumstances
of last seen together, how it could be made basis for
conviction. It is observed that:
Section 109 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1