Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Gunduchi Patnaik And Anr. vs State Of Orissa on 26 September, 1984
Reliance was also placed on 1984 C.L.R. (Cri) 345 (Gunduchi Patnaik and Anr. v. State of Orissa) where no disclosure had been made by the witness to the police for about thirteen days and no explanation had been furnished for such non-disclosure. It is true that a defect in investigation is not always automatically to culminate in throwing out of the prosecution case and acquittal of the accused and that unless the I.O. has been asked in the cross-examination regarding the defect, his evidence is not to be rejected only on account of the defect. Yet it has to be appreciated that where the defect in the investigation is so fundamental and strikes at a deeper root, the entire prosecution case thereby faulters and the Court may not rely upon and justifiably on the genuineness of the prosecution case unless plausible and acceptable explanation comes forth for the deficiency.
Subhash & Another vs State Of U.P on 6 May, 1976
Reliance was placed to reach that conclusion on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1924 (Subhash and Anr. v. State of U.P.)
Bhagwan And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 1980
and A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 345 1780 (Bhagwan and Anr. v. State of M.P.). In the earlier decision the evidence of the daughter of the deceased was rejected as her statement was recorded at late night on the same day though the Investigating Officer had reached the spot around at 2.30 p.m. In the latter case where the witness was examined one and half months after the date of the incident and no explanation had been offered for the delayed examination, the evidence was not found to be acceptable.
1