Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.72 seconds)
Public Prosecutor vs Rajender Singh Srivastava on 7 March, 2018 cites

Sukhvinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 12 May, 1994

6. FSL expert/ PW7 in his report Ex.PW7/A has opined   that Ex.PW1/F   to   Ex.PW1/I   bear   the   signatures   of   Dharamveer   as witness and thumb impression of Randhir as executant.  However the ld. Trial court on the basis of judgments in the case of Hon'ble Apex   Court   in  Sukhvinder   Singh   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 which was further relied by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Singh Vs.  State 2004(1) JCC 110 by Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   has   rightly   discarded   the   said   FSL expert   opinion   report   on   the   ground   that   their   specimen signatures/thumb   impression   were   taken   by   the   IO   without permission of the court. The contrary argument of ld. Additional P.P. for appellant that amendment in the said regard came into force w.e.f 23.06.2006 and therefore it had no application in the present   case   filed   in   1995,   has   no   force   as   nowhere   in   the aforesaid judgments cited it is mentioned that they will only have prospective effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Rakesh Singha vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 April, 1996

6. FSL expert/ PW7 in his report Ex.PW7/A has opined   that Ex.PW1/F   to   Ex.PW1/I   bear   the   signatures   of   Dharamveer   as witness and thumb impression of Randhir as executant.  However the ld. Trial court on the basis of judgments in the case of Hon'ble Apex   Court   in  Sukhvinder   Singh   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 which was further relied by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Singh Vs.  State 2004(1) JCC 110 by Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   has   rightly   discarded   the   said   FSL expert   opinion   report   on   the   ground   that   their   specimen signatures/thumb   impression   were   taken   by   the   IO   without permission of the court. The contrary argument of ld. Additional P.P. for appellant that amendment in the said regard came into force w.e.f 23.06.2006 and therefore it had no application in the present   case   filed   in   1995,   has   no   force   as   nowhere   in   the aforesaid judgments cited it is mentioned that they will only have prospective effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 34 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1   2 Next