Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Harpal Singh And Ors. on 22 August, 1978
At that very time bomb was hurled so the sequence of the place of occurrence and the standing position of the witnesses, deceased and the appellant Varun Sharma could not be explained due to non-examination of the Investigation Officer. There is no direct evidence of any eye witness that Varun sharma abetted the commission of offence. The only circumstance is that as he was aggrieved due to non-payment of his arrears of salary, hence he was the person, who gave orders and abetted the commission of offence. Learned counsel has argued that suspicion, howsoever strong, does not amount to prove to hold the accused guilty either under Section 302 read with Section 109 or under Section 307 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 1979 SCC (Cr) 86 (State of Haryana v. Harpal Singh and Ors.).
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ishwar Singh Bindra & Ors vs The State Of U.P on 2 May, 1968
18. Learned Counsel for the appellant in course of argur lent has submitted that the informant firstly went to Kotwal1 Police Station and informed the police. Soon thereafter, the police came at Gandhi Chowk and recorded the Fard-beyan of the informant Gulshan Lal Ajmani on 8-1-1988 at about 12 noon. It was argued that the First I nformation Report shows that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 1/4 Km. from the Civil Courts. But the First Information Report was received in the office/Court of the learned Chief judicial Magistrate on 11-1-1988 i.e. after an abnormal delay, to cover the said distance of 1 /4 km. only. It was argued that the prosecution has not explained the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court and has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court, reported in A.I.R. 1976 SC 2423 (Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh) and AIR 1979 SC 135 (Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra), in which, it has been held by the apex Court that "The extraordnary delay in sending the F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later that the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embelishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence."
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 1978
18. Learned Counsel for the appellant in course of argur lent has submitted that the informant firstly went to Kotwal1 Police Station and informed the police. Soon thereafter, the police came at Gandhi Chowk and recorded the Fard-beyan of the informant Gulshan Lal Ajmani on 8-1-1988 at about 12 noon. It was argued that the First I nformation Report shows that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 1/4 Km. from the Civil Courts. But the First Information Report was received in the office/Court of the learned Chief judicial Magistrate on 11-1-1988 i.e. after an abnormal delay, to cover the said distance of 1 /4 km. only. It was argued that the prosecution has not explained the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court and has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court, reported in A.I.R. 1976 SC 2423 (Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh) and AIR 1979 SC 135 (Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra), in which, it has been held by the apex Court that "The extraordnary delay in sending the F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later that the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embelishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence."
Anam Pradhan And Ors. vs The State on 9 February, 1982
22. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the First Information Report Indicates no motive to kill Sri Krishna Sharma and whatever was motive that has been alleged only against P.W. 1 (Vishwanath Narsaria), who was Chairman of the School and had deferred payment of salary of this appellant. The motive later on shows that when Hawildar Harendra Singh (P.W. 7) had caught hold of one boy having revolver, then bomb was hurled with an intention to rescue that boy. So the motive was not to kill the informant or Vishwanath Narsaria rather the motive was to rescue tr e apprehended criminal and it was aimed at P.W. 7 (Hawildar Harendra Singh) but it is surprising that Hawildar Harendra Singh (P.W. 7) did not see anyone at the place of occurrence when bomb was hurled nor he saw anyone who abetted the hurling of bomb. Learned Counsel while argued on this point, has relied on a decision of the Orissa High Court, reported in 1982 Cri. L.J. 1585 (Anam Pradhan and Ors. v. The State).
1