Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)
Siddanagouda S/O Dyavanagouda Patil @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka, on 26 February, 2020 cites

Sonu @ Amar vs State Of Haryana on 18 July, 2017

58. It is also the case of the prosecution that the prosecution have recovered two mobiles, MOs 13 and 14 at the instance of accused No.2. the Investigating Officer has also made efforts to secure call details of the SIM cards which are fixed with these two mobiles, which is marked at Ex.P.28. Though the learned counsel submitted : 50 : that the certificate u/S 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been produced by the Investigating Officer but during the course of examination of the Investigating Officer, no such plea has been taken and there was no objection raised by the accused for marking of these documents before the Court. Therefore, when there was no cross-examination or there was no objections raised at the time of marking these documents the same question cannot be raised before the appellate court as there was no opportunity to the prosecution to correct the said lapses or mistakes committed by the Investigating Officer. This has been very well enunciated in the decision of the apex Court in Sonu v/s State of Haryana reported in 2017 (8) SCC 570. Therefore, such mere procedural lapses in no way helpful to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 164 - L N Rao - Full Document
1