Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.22 seconds)
Tara And Lakha vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 July, 1976 cites

Ram Kumar Pande vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 1975

10. The case of Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 2026 is of no avail to the accused appellants. It is distinguishable on facts. The prosecution story in this case was that Suresh Ahuja, accused, had stabbed Harbinder Singh on the right side of the chest at the door of the kitchen, and thereafter Ram Kumar Pandey was said to have attached PW. 7 Satwant Kaur. In the first information report the fact of Suresh's stabbing Harbinder Singh was not mentioned. It was mentioned therein that PW. 2 Taranjit Kaur and PW. 6 Amarjit Kaur. daughters of Uttam Singh had wrapped a 'chaddar' on the wound of Harbinder Singh but it was not mentioned that they had witnessed the occurrence, whereas during the trial they stated that they hid witnessed Harbindar Singh being injured by the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that non mentioning of the names of these two eye witnesses in the first information report weighed heavily against the prosecution. In the case on hand, as already stated, the first information report was given by a third person, who was not an eye-witness of the occurrence and as such the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused appellants cannot be of any help to the case of the accused-appellants. The fact that the witness is a close relative of the deceased is all the more a good ground for believing her statement. It is not expected of her to leave the real accused and implicate innocent persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 101 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 3 Next