Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.76 seconds)Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
10. Mr. Das also cited the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v.
Anil Singh (1988 Supp. (2) SCR 611) for the proposition that the
prosecution version could not be rejected only on the ground that all the
witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. He submitted that the
prosecution story thus cannot be discarded merely because all the witnesses
named in the FIR including Sunder Lal Singh were not examined before the
court.
Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hem Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 29 March, 2005
12. We may first examine the contention of Mr. Hansaria that the trial
court and the High Court should not have relied on the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-2 who were interested witnesses and that the prosecution
should have examined the independent witnesses cited in the FIR,
namely, Sunder Lal Singh, Lakhpat Sonar and Shisuvir Narain, who as
per the FIR shouted at the appellants when they were firing at the
deceased. We have perused the decision of this Court in Hem Raj and
Others v. State of Haryana (supra) cited by Mr. Hansaria and we find
that in the aforesaid decision this Court has held that non-
examination of independent witnesses by itself may not give rise to
adverse inference against the prosecution, but when the evidence of
the alleged eyewitnesses raises serious doubts on the point of their
presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission
to examine the independent witnesses would assume significance.
Hence, we will have to first consider whether the evidence of the
two eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 raises serious doubts on the point of
their presence at the time of actual occurrence.
Thangaiya vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 December, 2004
17. We do not also think that the evidence of PW-2 could have been
discarded on the ground that he was only a chance witness. The
incident took place when the deceased were traveling on a motorcycle
on the road and PW-2 was also coming on the same road on his cycle
when he saw the incident. This Court has held in Thangaiya v. State
of T.N. (supra) that if a murder is committed in a street, only
passers-by will be witnesses and their evidence cannot be brushed
aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they were mere
chance witnesses. Moreover, PW-2 has been named in the FIR as one
of the persons who were coming on a cycle from Dhata side and as one
of the persons who shouted at the appellants not to fire.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi on 17 April, 1963
In State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (AIR 1964 SC 221), Subba
Rao, J., as he then was, has held that it was necessary for the
accused to throw a reasonable doubt that the prosecution evidence is
such that it must have been manipulated or shaped by reason of the
irregularity in the matter of investigation, or that he was
prevented by reason of such irregularity from putting forward his
defence or adducing evidence in support thereof, but where the
prosecution evidence has been held to be true and where the accused
had full say in the matter, the conviction cannot obviously be set
aside on the ground of every irregularity or illegality in the
matter of investigation. In other words, unless the lapses on the
part of the investigation are such as to cast reasonable doubt about
the prosecution story or seriously prejudice the defence of the
accused, the Court will not set aside the conviction.