Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)State Of Rajasthan vs Gurmail Singh on 23 February, 2005
In State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh
2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the sample
seal was not sent to the Laboratory, at the time of sending the
sample parcel. The Apex Court, held that the case of the
prosecution was doubtful, on account of this reason. In this
view of the matter, the case of the prosecution also became
doubtful. The trial Court, did not take into consideration, this
aspect of the matter,as a result whereof, it fell into an error in
recording conviction.
Gian Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 December, 1961
In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR
(Criminal) 611, there was a delay of 14 days, in sending the
sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these
circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering
with the sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence
Crl. Appeal No. 2165-SB of 2003 &Crl. Appeal No.2190-SB of 2003
11
was incomplete. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted, in
that case.
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
In Masalti Vs. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC
202, a four Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held that it is,
undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution to lay before the
Court, all material evidence, available to it, which is
necessary for unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to
lay down, as a general rule, that every witness must be
examined, even though, his evidence may not be very
material, or even if, it is known that he has been won over or
terrorised.
Ramji Lal And Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 6 December, 1982
In Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007
(3) RCR (Criminal) 452, the sample was sent to the office of
the Chemical Examiner after 72 hours. Under these
circumstances, it was held that this circumstance would prove
fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the prosecution
could lead other independent evidence, to prove that none
tampered with the samples, till the same reached the office of
the Chemical Examiner. The other evidence produced by the
prosecution, in this case, to prove the link evidence, is not
only deficient, but also unreliable. In these circumstances, the
principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully
applicable to the facts of the present case. The delay of four
days, in sending the sample parcels, to the office of the
Chemical Examiner, and non-strict proof, by the prosecution,
that the same were not tampered with, till the same were
deposited, in that office, must prove fatal to the case of the
prosecution, as the possibility of tampering with the same,
Crl. Appeal No. 2165-SB of 2003 &Crl. Appeal No.2190-SB of 2003
12
could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the
appellants, in this regard, being correct, is accepted.
State Of Punjab vs Nachhattar Singh @ Bania on 26 February, 2007
In State of Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh @
Bania, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1040, a case decided by a
Division Bench of this Court, an independent witness was
joined, but was not examined. In these circumstances, it was
held that the case of the prosecution became doubtful. The
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being correct, is
accepted.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1