Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.56 seconds)
Jai Pal & Another vs State Of U.P. on 23 January, 2018 cites

Jitendra And Anr vs State Of M.P on 18 September, 2003

"100 . Physical evidence of a case of this nature being the property of Court should have been treated to be sacrosanct. Non-production thereof should warrant drawing of a negative inference within the meaning of section 114 (g) of the evidence Act. While there are such a large number of discrepancies, if a cumulative effect thereto is taken into consideration on the basis of the permissive inference would be that serious doubts are created with respect to the prosecution's endeavour to prove the fact of possession of contraband by the appellant. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Jitendra vs State of MP, in following terms: (SCC p . 565, para 6) "6 . ... In the trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were seized from possession of the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 666 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next