Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Mohd. Hashim Masood vs State on 30 September, 1999
12.Secondly, as per the prosecution version, a button actuated knife had been
recovered from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this allegation,
the prosecution produced rukka which mentioned preparation of sketch of
knife and seizure memo of knife at the time of recovery. Further, as per the
depositions of PW-1 and PW-4, the case property was first measured, sketched
and seized and only thereafter, the rukka was sent for registration of FIR.
However, the seizure memo and sketch bear the FIR number. At the time of the
seizure, the FIR number was not available and therefore, the FIR number could
not have figured on the seizure memo or the sketch. The existence of the FIR
number on the seizure memo and sketch of knife suggests that the seizure
memo was prepared after the registration of the FIR. This erodes the credibility
of the witnesses who have stated that the seizure memo and sketch were
prepared on the spot and before the registration of FIR. The possibility of
tampering cannot be ruled out. Here, it is relevant to refer to case law reported
as Mohd. Hashim v. State 1999(6) A.D. (Delhi) 569, wherein it was observed
that when documents are prepared before the registration of FIR and it contains
the FIR number, then inference has to be drawn that either FIR was recorded
prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases benefit
of the doubt is to be given to the accused.
Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964
Moreover, the relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police
officials have not been proved on record. Therefore, their presence at the
alleged date, time and place of recovery of the button actuated knife from the
possession of the accused is doubtful. At this point, it is relevant to refer to
case law reported as Rattan Lal v. State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the
Delhi High Court held that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to
comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their
action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the
provisions of the law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be
said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record
the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and
attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution.
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
In Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1990 (1) CLR 69, it was
observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the
proceedings are unreliable.
Section 4 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 281 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rabindranath Prusty vs State Of Orissa on 24 November, 1984
In the case of Orissa
High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty v. State of Orissa, 1984 CriLJ
1392 it was held that one of the formalities that have to be observed in
searching a person is that the searching officer and other assisting him should
give their search to the accused before searching the person of the accused. In
the present case, no witness deposed about the search being done by the
accused before his personal search whereby the buttondar knife was recovered
from him. All these circumstances raise serious doubt regarding the fairness
and credibility of proceedings conducted by the police at the alleged date, time
and place.
Mangat Ram Passi vs State Of Haryana on 25 February, 2011
Further, in Passi @ Prakash v. State of Haryana
2001(1) RCR 435, it was held that whenever any recovery in connection with
the place of the commission of the offence is made, public persons must be
made witnesses.