Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Hardyal And Prem vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 November, 1990
Reference may usefully be made to Hardyal/ Prem v. State of
Rajasthan, [1991] Supp. 1 SCC 148 relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant wherein while considering various circumstances, the two
circumstances that were taken into consideration by this Court to doubt the
recovery of the ornaments were the common pattern of ornaments which was
worn by ladies in Rajasthan, and another, that the same had been kept for
long in the house. Under these circumstances, this Court held that evidence
relating to recovery of ornaments was not at all worth accepting.
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
16. In cross-examination, P.W. 14 has deposed that he had put the
signatures on both Exs. P15 and 16 after recovery of ornaments from the
house of the appellant. P.W. 14 has also deposed that the thum impressions
of the appellant on both documents were obtained at that time. It is thus
evident that after the alleged recovery the document pursuant to which the
recovery was supposed to be made was got signed from the witness and thumb
impression of the appellant taken. Therefore, no reliance in regard to
recovery of ornaments can be placed on the testimony of police officer.
Para 21 of Sunil and Co. case (supra) also makes clear that no reliance can
be placed on the testimony of a police officer who is shown to be
unreliable.
Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohibur Rahman And Anr. vs State Of Assam on 21 August, 2002
Reliance on the case of Mohibur Rahman and Anr. v. State of
Assam, [2002] 6 SCC 715 for the proposition that despite holding on facts
that the recovery statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not
admissible so also the recovery in consequence of that statement, it could
still be relied upon as a circumstance is misplaced, on the facts of the
present case regarding preparation of Exhibits P. 15 and P. 16 as
aforestated.
1