Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2021 cites

Ankush Maruti Shinde . vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2019

In the same judgment, The Supreme Court, relying upon an earlier judgment passed in V.K. Sasikala Vs. State - (2012) 9 SCC 771, Highlighted the importance of the police in examining the documents that maybe in support of the accused and held in the following words "As observed by this Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] , though it is only such reports which support the prosecution case that are required to be forwarded to the Court under Section 173(5), in every situation where some of the seized papers and the documents do not support the prosecution case and, on the contrary, support the accused, a duty is cast on the investigating officer to evaluate the two sets of documents and materials collected and, if required, to exonerate the accused at that stage itself".2 1 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10 at page 504 2 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10.3 at page 505
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 128 - M R Shah - Full Document

R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

(Vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] , Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(1974) 3 SCC 774 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 250 : AIR 1974 SC 1822] , SCC at p. 780, para 11 and Mahmood v. State of U.P. [(1976) 1 SCC 542 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 72 : AIR 1976 SC 69] )". Further, in the same judgement Supreme Court held "Not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non- interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 15811 - J C Shah - Full Document

V.K. Sasikala vs State Rep. By Superintendent Of Police on 27 September, 2012

In the same judgment, The Supreme Court, relying upon an earlier judgment passed in V.K. Sasikala Vs. State - (2012) 9 SCC 771, Highlighted the importance of the police in examining the documents that maybe in support of the accused and held in the following words "As observed by this Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] , though it is only such reports which support the prosecution case that are required to be forwarded to the Court under Section 173(5), in every situation where some of the seized papers and the documents do not support the prosecution case and, on the contrary, support the accused, a duty is cast on the investigating officer to evaluate the two sets of documents and materials collected and, if required, to exonerate the accused at that stage itself".2 1 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10 at page 504 2 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10.3 at page 505
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 56 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Udit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2020

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, in support has cited order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC No.16453/2019 (Udit Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another). As per facts of the aforesaid case, the applicant was being prosecuted for causing dowry death of his wife. The case of the applicant was that his wife was having promiscuous relations with other person and objectionable photographs of his wife with other person were received by the applicant and then, applicant confronted his wife with the aforesaid photographs leading to committal of suicide by the wife. It was prayed by the applicant that the material, which supported his case ought to be considered by the Investigating Officer. The Co-ordinate Bench allowed the prayer. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid order are as follows :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - A Sreedharan - Full Document

Mahmood vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 1975

(Vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] , Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(1974) 3 SCC 774 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 250 : AIR 1974 SC 1822] , SCC at p. 780, para 11 and Mahmood v. State of U.P. [(1976) 1 SCC 542 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 72 : AIR 1976 SC 69] )". Further, in the same judgement Supreme Court held "Not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non- interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 104 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1