Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (3.24 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 31 August, 1995
44. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that the case of
prosecution cannot be allowed to die at the hands of IO and no benefit
State V/s Dadan Parshad etc. ("Convicted") Page 22 of 31
FIR No. 534/11; U/s 308/325/34 IPC; P.S. Mangol Puri DOD: 20.12.2014
should be given to the accused due to defect, if any in the investigation
carried out by the investigating agency. Still if any authority is required
then reference with advantage can be made to the judgment in the matter
titled as "Ram Bihari Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar & Ors."
reported at ( 1995) 6 SCC 31) wherein it has been observed that if primacy
is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or
lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of
the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcement agency but also
in the administration of justice.
Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2004
In another matter titled as "Dhanajay Singh @ Shera & Ors.
Vs. State of Punjab" reported at {(2004) 3SCC 654}, Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that in the case of defective investigation, the Court has to
be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in
acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect in investigation
as to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating
officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
Param Hans Yadav & Sadanand Tripathi vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 February, 1987
46. Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paras Yadav Vs. State of Bihar {AIR
1999 SC 644} has enunciated the principle that if the lapse or omission is
committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the
prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to
find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated
conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence
State V/s Dadan Parshad etc. ("Convicted") Page 23 of 31
FIR No. 534/11; U/s 308/325/34 IPC; P.S. Mangol Puri DOD: 20.12.2014
by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and
justice would be denied to the complainant party.
Smt. Saraswati And Ors. vs Shri Shiv Shankar And Ors. on 3 July, 2007
In support of his submissions, he
also relied upon the judgment in the matter titled as "Smt. Saraswati &
Ors. Vs. Sh. Shiv Shanker & Ors." reported at MANUDE8158/2007.
However, the said argument of Ld defence counsel has to be rejected for the
reason that nothing could be brought on record from the side of accused
persons either during cross examination of prosecution witnesses or
otherwise, in order to substantiate their plea that complainant and his family
members had any sort of previous enmity with them. Rather, the accused
persons have taken altogether different defence during cross examination of
PW1 Anil Kumar and PW2 Sanjay by putting suggestions that said two
witnesses alongwith their family members had gone to the house of accused
persons for taking revenge of beatings caused by accused Ravi to PW2
Sanjay and when PW1 attacked upon accused Dadan Prasad with iron rod, it
accidentally hit on the head of PW2 Sanjay due to which Sanjay sustained
injuries. Likewise, when PW2 Sanjay was attacking upon accused persons,
PW1 Anil Kumar sustained injuries accidentally.
Waman & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 June, 2011
In the matter titled as Waman Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 7 SCC 295, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
" It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the
complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown
out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact
of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In
other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the
credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinise their
evidence meticulously with a little care".