Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (4.25 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram on 7 November, 2006
15. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2007) 1 SCC (Crl.) 688 for the proposition that unless prejudice is shown, merely because incriminating materials were not put forth to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it will not be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. In our opinion, even in the said judgment in paragraph 27, it is seen that the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, but the response of the accused was a bald denial and therefore, it was held that the mere non-mentioning of the name of P.W.2 would not cause any prejudice to the accused. In our opinion, the said judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is of no assistance to the facts of this case. As the prosecution case stands solely on circumstantial evidence and one of the circumstances being the recovery of the wooden stick said to have been used by the appellant herein contained human blood or not is a vital incriminating material and the failure on the part of the Court to put a question as to such incriminating material, certainly, would cause prejudice to the accused and the conviction on the basis of such incriminating material should be held to be illegal. If the recovery also goes, there is no other evidence except the motive aspect. Even in case of recovery, the Apex Court has held that a mere recovery alone would not be sufficient to sustain the conviction unless such recovery is corroborated by the other evidence.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 24 November, 2006
If the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 9 are disbelieved, the only evidence available for the prosecution is the recovery of the wooden stick, M.O.7, shirt, M.O.10 and pant, M.O.11 and the recovery is said to have been made solely on the basis of the admissible portion of the confessional statement of A-1. In such circumstances, the recovery being an incriminating material to prove the charges against A-1, the same should have been put to A-1 while he was questioned. It is not in dispute that though in Question No.23, A-1 was asked about the exhibits marked for having sent the material objects for chemical examination, he was not put the incriminating material in Ex.P-13 as to the wooden stick, M.O.7 containing the human blood 'A'. The issue as to whether the failure to put all the incriminating materials to the accused would prejudice the accused and consequently the sentence could be sustained came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky case (supra). In paragraph 23, the Apex Court has held as follows:-
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ravinder Parkash & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2002
This proposition of law has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment in Ravinder Parkash case (supra).
Sudama Pandey And Others vs State Of Bihar on 5 December, 2001
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Going by the evidence and materials, it is beyond dispute that the prosecution case stands only on circumstantial evidence. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court in number of cases that when the prosecution case stands on circumstantial evidence, there should not only be any missing link but also the link should be strong and important. This proposition of law is held by the Apex Court in the judgment in Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC (Crl.) 239, wherein it has been held that in circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must also prove the additional link if required in the given circumstances of the case.