Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajbir Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 8 March, 2006
16. No doubt some judgments such as State of Maharashtra Etc. v. Som Nath Thapa Etc. JT 1996 (4) SC 615 have indicated that in charges of rape etc. the Court should avoid embarking on detailed consideration of the probative value of materials. The decision in Rajbir Singh's case is also to that effect. However, in my opinion these do not detract from the basic time tested norm that the Court has to form a reasonable opinion about existence of grave suspicion, regarding commission of the offence. Equally if two versions are possible, the one supporting the accused has to be preferred. In this case the entire materials before the Court are in the form of statements. There is a clear conflict about the facts alleged. Besides the informant there is no one speaking about the incident as alleged by her. The police constable who was admittedly on the spot, stated that there was no quarrel as described by her and the two independent witnesses again admittedly present, gave a completely different picture pointing to the informant starting a quarrel with them. They clearly state that the petitioner did not threaten, assault or abuse the informant.
Neelam Mahajan Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 1 March, 1996
He relied on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Ms. Neelam Mahajan Singh v. Commissioner of Police 1993 JCC 536 to say that the complainant had sought to level false allegations in another incident.
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
15. The facts on record which are part of the charge sheet, therefore, present a conflicting picture all the statements of independent witnesses do not support the version of the informant. It was only the statement of the informant that the incident alleged by her occurred, according to the facts described in the FIR and the charge sheet. It is well-settled in Prafulla Kumar Samal's case that the Court has to sift the evidence and determine whether a grave suspension about commission of offence exists on the basis of the materials.
Section 170 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 169 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002
Kurane's case is an authority for the proposition that if there are two versions or two inferences can be reasonably drawn, the version favorable to the accused has to be accepted by the Court so long as it is a reasonable one.
1