Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Habeeb Mohammad vs The State Of Hyderabad on 5 October, 1953
Counsel argued that the High Court erred in declining to do
so and relied on Habeeb Mohammed V. State of Hyderabad(1),
where it has been observed that it is the bounded duty of
the prosecution to examine a material witness particularly
when no allegation has been made that, if produced, he would
not speak the truth. The decision further observes that not
only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution
case from his nonproduction as a witness in view of
illustration (g) to section 114, but that the circumstance
of his being withheld from the court would cast a serious
reflection on the fairness of the trial.
Darya Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1963
In Darya Singh v.
State of Punjab(1) also this Court has observed that a
prosecutor should never adopt the device of keeping back eye
witnesses only because their evidence is likely to go
against the prosecution and that the duty of the prosecutor
is to assist the Court in reaching a proper conclusion. It
is open, however, to the prosecutor not to examine witnesses
who in his opinion have not witnessed the incident, but
normally, he ought to examine all 'the eye witnesses in
support of his case. But in a case where a ,large number of
persons have witnessed the incident, it is open to him to
make a selection. The selection must, however, be fair and
honest and not with a view to suppress inconvenient
witnesses. Therefore, if it is shown that persons who had
witnessed the incident have been deliberately kept back,
the- court may draw an
(1) A. I. R. 1954 S.C. 51.
Kirpal Singh vs State Of U.P on 10 May, 1963
The trial court and the High Court found from this evidence
that the account of the incident given by the witnesses was
acceptable despite certain discrepancies therein, that it
occurred at about 5-30 P.m., that Lal Singh was shot at and
killed just outside his house, that Harihar was first
attacked inside his house and then dragged to where Lal
Singhs body lay and was there killed, that the appellants
were responsible for the assault and the consequent deaths
of the two victims, that in order to leave no trace of the,
two assaults they burnt the bodies of the victims and
scrapped the earth where blood had fallen, that they formed
an unlawful assembly of which the common object was to
murder the father and the, son and that they attacked and
killed both in furtherance of that common object and then
tried to do away with the evidence of their acts and burnt
the two bodies. These being concurrent findings ,of fact,
we would not normally proceed to review the evidence unless
it is shown that the trial is vitiated by some illegality or
irregularity of procedure or that it was held in a manner
contrary to rules of natural justice or the judgment under
appeal has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice : (cf.
Kirpal Singh v. State of U.P.)
Counsel for the appellants, however, contended that such a
miscarriage, of justice has resulted in the present case.
He argued that the trial court and the High Court failed to
appreciate from the evidence on record that the prosecution
had deliberately tried to shift the time of the incident at
5-30 that evening though the incident must have taken place
subsequently, in order to enable the four witnesses to pose
as eye witnesses. The evidence of Jitendra and the
Investigating Officer was that the F.I.R. was lodged at 6-45
P.m. and that Jitendra had started from the village at 6
P.m. on cycle for the police station. The evidence of the
Investigating. Officer also is that he reached the spot
soon thereafter, that the body of Harihar was not fully
burnt out, and that he could manage to extract the half
burnt body from the fire. The evidence of Dr. Srivastava
supports this evidence in a large measure. It is manifest
that if the incident took place at night and P. W. 1 bad
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 992, 996.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1