Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)

State vs Tej Pal Singh @ Teja on 4 August, 2009

PW4 has deposed that on the day of the incident, he was coming back alongwith PW3 after attending DD no. 39 A and at 11:30pm, they reached New Lyallpur where secret informer met them and informed them about a person selling blue CDs at Machiwali gali and thereafter PW2 who was on patrolling duty met them. PW4 went on to depose that PW2 was made a decoy customer and sent to the shop in question with 100/- for purchasing CD and after receiving signal from PW2, at about 11:50 pm, PW3 and PW4 went to the shop and apprehended the accused. PW2 has also deposed that he met PW4/IO and PW3 at 11:30 pm and PW3 and PW4 raided the shop no. 2/11 New Lyallpur Krishna Nagar at 11:50 pm. In the FIR Ex. PW1/A (OSR) also, the time period of the offence in question is mentioned as "11:30 pm to 11:50 pm". However, the above testimony of PW4/IO is completely at odds with the following documents which have come on record. The first document is copy of DD entry no. 39A which was placed on record by the PW4 himself i.e. Ex. PW4/X as per which it was a PCR call received at 11:50 pm which was handed over to PW4. The obvious question which therefore arises is that if DD no. 39A was handed over to PW4 at 11:50 pm which admittedly he attended to prior to FIR No.123/04 pages 5 out of11 State vs. Tej Pal Singh apprehension of the accused, it is not possible that he conducted the raid on the shop in question at 11:50 pm as deposed by the PWs. Further, PW4/IO was confronted with the documents Ex. PW4/D1 i.e. the certified copy of the proceedings undertaken in kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC. As per Ex. PW4/D1, on 18/3/2004, PW4 had attended another call on 100 no. made by one Usha Rani recorded vide DD no. 32A in the PS at 9:50 pm and at 11:25 pm, the IO/PW4 was present at the PS after arresting one Pradeep vide kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC pursuant to the said call. The obvious question which again arises is that if the IO was present in the PS at 11:25 pm he could not have been present at New Lyallpur at 11:30 pm. In fact during cross examination, PW4 deposed that he was present in the PS at 11:30 pm on 18/3/2004. No explanation has been provided by PW4 for this glaring discrepancy other than that his own watch was behind time and he had not seen the clock installed in the PS on that day. This expla- nation also runs in the face of the testimony of PW2 who has affirmed that he met PW4 and PW3 at 11:30 pm and the raid was conducted at 11:50 pm and that of PW3 who deposed during his cross examination by the Ld. APP that the raid was conducted at 11:50 pm. To sum up, the clear mismatch in the testimony of PW4 and the abovementioned documents raise a strong suspicion upon the factum of the alleged raid having been conducted at shop no. 2/11 New Lyallpur Krishna Nagar on 18/3/2004.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017

"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court 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 evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers 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 rigors 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".
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2089 - P S Teji - Full Document
1   2 Next