Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2013
13. The main witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 Smt.
Shabana has turned hostile in the present case. It is pertinent to
note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witness is not
discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in
omnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the
evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex
Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013)
14 SCC 434, as under -
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
"It is repeatedly laid down by this court that
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 evident that no such sincere efforts
have been made, particularly when we find
that shops were open and one or two
shop−keepers could have been persuaded to
join the raiding party to witness the recovery
being made from the appellant. In case any
FIR No.42/24
PS Shahdara
State v. Salman @ Billi and Anr. Page No.19 of 21
of the shopkeepers had declined to join the
raiding party, the police could have later on
taken legal action against such shop−keepers
because they could not have escaped the
rigours 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."
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
17. Further it was held in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in case titled as Roop Chand vs The State of Haryana,
1999(1) C.L.R 69 that it is well settled principle of the law that
the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the
time of recovery of articles, if they are available and their failure
to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the
prosecution case.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 1995
In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of
Maharashtra reported AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930, it was held
that failure of police to join witness from locality during search
creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which
has to go to the accused.