Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)State Of West Bengal vs Ashish Kumar Roy And Ors on 3 December, 2004
19. It should be noted that the public witnesses have not joined in the present
investigation. From the cross examination of PW4 HC Sudesh Kumar who also
FIR no. 82/2020 State Vs. Ashish 6/10
happens to be the IO of the case it is admitted fact that IO did not join any public
person in the investigation and no notice was even served on any public person to join
the investigation. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police
witnesses. Although, it can be said that it was a chance recovery but the incident had
occurred near a busy locality and therefore, it cannot be said that no public person
would have been available at the spot and even if the prosecution has not joined the
public witnesses it was incumbent upon the prosecution to at least put forward the
reasons for not doing so.
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964
16. Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are mandated to
record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. In the
instant case, this provision has not been complied by the concerned police witnesses.
The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials have not
been proved on record. It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that;
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
" It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it
should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been
made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is
evident that no such sincere efforts have been made,
particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two
shop keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding
party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In
case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding
party, the police could have later on taken legal action against
such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the
rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to
assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an
offence under the IPC."
Tahir vs State (Delhi) on 21 March, 1996
At this stage, reference can be
taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State
(Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held interalia the following:
Sahib Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1996
23. The requirement of the police officials to make endeavour to ask the public witnesses
to join the proceedings was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2417, wherein it interalia held the
following:
Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 1995
24. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v.
State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 dealt with the issue of the requirement of the
examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness
requires corroboration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the same must be
subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded
merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in
the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as possible the corroboration of
their evidence on material particulars should be sought.
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
1