Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.80 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Manju Devi Gurjar vs State Of Raj And Anr on 29 April, 2019
9. In the case in hand, the petitioner has already cross-
examined both the witnesses and three questions which have been
served further cross-examination are general so far section 376 I.P.C. is
concerned. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon judgment in the case of "Manju Devi" (supra). In that case the
doctor who conducted the first post-mortem has not been examined and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the doctor who
conducted first post mortem who is necessary witness for examination
5
by both prosecution and defence. The said judgment was based on facts
of that case which is not helping the petitioner.
Rajendra Prasad vs Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer ... on 12 July, 1999
In
the case of "Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell" reported in (1999)
6 SCC 110, it was observed that after all, function of the criminal court
is administration of criminal justice and not to count the errors committed
by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties
performed better. There is no doubt that trial court is competent enough
to call any witness at any stage and for calling the witness if the court is
satisfied, there is no illegality.
Natasha Singh vs Cbi (State) on 8 May, 2013
In Natasha
Singh v. CBI, though the application for examination of witnesses
was filed by the accused but, on the principles relating to the
exercise of powers under Section 311, this Court observed, inter
alia, as under: (SCC pp. 746 & 748-49, paras 8 &15)
"8. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a
material witness, or to examine a person present at "any
stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings"
Shailendra Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Others on 28 November, 2001
7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. contains two parts. First part indicates the
word 'may' and the second part uses the word 'shall'. On perusal of
section 311 Cr.P.C., it transpires that once petition is filed and the
Magistrate comes to the conclusion that it is essential for calling any
4
witness, he is bound to call in view of second part of section 311 Cr.P.C.
Reference may be made to the case of "Shailendra Kumar V. State of
Bihar and Others" wherein second last paragraph of the said judgment
says that, bare reading of the aforesaid section reveals that it is of very
wide amplitude and if there is any negligence, latches or mistakes by not
examining material witnesses, the Courts function to render just decision
by examining such witnesses at any stage is not, in any way, impaired.
1