Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.77 seconds)
State vs . Mukesh Kumar on 31 August, 2021 cites

Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998

This cannot be believed as such a short distance would have hardly taken 1 minute. The spot of apprehension is a FIR No: 62/18 State v. Mukesh Kumar Page No.12/15 AAKASH Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.08.31 15:09:51 +05'30' residential area, so the investigating agency had sufficient opportunity to include some respectable local resident of the area to witness the seizure. However, no independent witness was joined in the proceedings. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in Nanak Chand V. State of Delhi, 1991 JCC(1).
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1546 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Roop Chand & Anr. Etc. vs State Of Haryana . on 4 April, 2014

11. It is also settled proposition that failure on the part of investigating agency to initiate action against such public person who does not join the investigation upon being served a notice to do so casts a doubt and is not worthy of credence. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Roop Chand V. State of Haryana, 1999(1) CLR69. Accordingly, an adverse inference is drawn u/s 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act that such evidence, if produced would have been unfavourable to the case of the investigating agency which is why no independent witness was made by the IO to the alleged recovery. The most problematic and glaring hole in the case of the prosecution is FIR No: 62/18 State v. Mukesh Kumar Page No.13/15 AAKASH Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.08.31 15:10:04 +05'30' that even though there is no police official among the raiding party whose name bears the initials 'PK' still seal of 'PK' was used to seal the pullanda of sample bottles and the seized gatta of case property. No explanation has been given as to how a wrong seal came into the possession of the IO/PW3. It is a settled proposition of law that the burden on prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having considered the record of the case, it would be unsafe to convict the accused without corroboration from an independent witness. The investigation officer ought to have included an independent witness during the seizure to bring credibility to the seizure of case property especially when the raid was conducted upon tipoff from secret informer and public persons were present at the spot where seizure was effected.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1437 - Full Document
1