Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Jaggo Alias Jagdish And Ors. on 30 March, 1971
In support of his contention that serious prejudice was
caused to the appellant by non-examination of Phool Singh
who had been cited by the prosecution as one of the witness,
Mr. Ganesh relied upon Stephen Senivaratne Vs. The King,
A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 289, Habeeb Mohammad Vs. The State of
Hyderabad, 1954 (5) S.C.R. 475 and State of U.P. and another
Vs. Jaggo Alias Jagdish and others, 971(2) S.C.C. 42. The
aforesaid decisions can be of little assistance to the
appellant in the present case. What was held by the Privy
Council and this Court was that witnesses who were essential
to the unfording of the narraitve on which the prosecution
is based must be called by the prosecution whether the
effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the
prosecution and that failure to examine such a witness might
affect a fair trial. It was also observed that all the
witnesses of the prosecution need not be called. In the
present case, the witnesses who were essential to the
unfolding of the narrative had been examined. One of the
facts which had to be estalished was that the body of the
deceased was found in the well and the same was taken out by
two labourers, namely, Giarsi Lal P.W. 6 and Phool Singh.
The fact that this body was recovered from the well was
proved by Giarsi Lal P.W. 6, amongs other witnesses, and
Phool Singh who had apparently been cited as a witness for
the same purpose was not examined. His non-examination
cannot be regarded as causing any prejudice to the
appellant.
Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sukhwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 1995
As far as Dr. O.P. Poddar is concerned, he was only
tendered for cross-examination without his being
examination-in-chief. Though, Dr.O.P. Poddar was not
examined-in-chief, this procedure of tendering a witness for
cross-examination is not warranted by law. This Court in
Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1995(2) Scale 482 held
that permitting the prosecution to tender a witness for
cross-examination only would be wrong and "the effect of
their being tendered only for cross-examination amounts to
the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the
trial". In the present case, however, non-examination of Dr.
O.P. Poddar is not very material because the post-mortem
report coupled with the testimonies of Dr. K.C. Jain P.W. 1
and Dr. J.L. Bhutani P.W. 9 was sufficient to enable the
courts to come to the conclusion about the cause of death.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Stephen Seneviratne vs The King on 29 July, 1936
In support of his contention that serious prejudice was
caused to the appellant by non-examination of Phool Singh
who had been cited by the prosecution as one of the witness,
Mr. Ganesh relied upon Stephen Senivaratne Vs. The King,
A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 289, Habeeb Mohammad Vs. The State of
Hyderabad, 1954 (5) S.C.R. 475 and State of U.P. and another
Vs. Jaggo Alias Jagdish and others, 971(2) S.C.C. 42. The
aforesaid decisions can be of little assistance to the
appellant in the present case. What was held by the Privy
Council and this Court was that witnesses who were essential
to the unfording of the narraitve on which the prosecution
is based must be called by the prosecution whether the
effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the
prosecution and that failure to examine such a witness might
affect a fair trial. It was also observed that all the
witnesses of the prosecution need not be called. In the
present case, the witnesses who were essential to the
unfolding of the narrative had been examined. One of the
facts which had to be estalished was that the body of the
deceased was found in the well and the same was taken out by
two labourers, namely, Giarsi Lal P.W. 6 and Phool Singh.
The fact that this body was recovered from the well was
proved by Giarsi Lal P.W. 6, amongs other witnesses, and
Phool Singh who had apparently been cited as a witness for
the same purpose was not examined. His non-examination
cannot be regarded as causing any prejudice to the
appellant.
Sahabjan And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 1989
Out attention was also drawn to the decision of
the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sahabjan and another
Vs. State of U.P., 1990 Crl. L.J. 980 where it was observed
that the mere allegation that some witnesses were not
prepared to support the prosecution case and had been won
over by the accused would not be sufficient and that
opportunity should be given to the court to assess their
evidence and to come to such a conclusion. In that case the
witnesses given up had been named as being the eye witness
to the incidence and it is in that context the Court made
the aforesaid observation. Non-examination of a witness who
had been cited by the prosecution would of course result in
an adverse inference being drawn in view of Illustraiton (g)
of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and may in some cases
even caused prejudice to the defence, but in the present
case, Phool Singh who merely recovered the body from the
well along with Giarsi Lal P.W. 6 was not such an important
witness whose non-examination could be said to have caused
any prejudice to the appellant.
1