Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 323 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 308 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 429 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P.(Now Uttarakhand) on 8 May, 2015
12. According to the prosecution, A1 to A3 had
surrendered before the police and then they produced M.O.1
chopper and M.O.2 reaper before the police. However, PW6,
Criminal Appeal No.410 of 2014
12
2025:KER:6735
attestor to Ext.P4 seizure mahazar deposed that PW1 and one
Sobin were present in the police station and that it was they who
had produced the chopper and reaper before the police, at which
time the accused persons were not present. He identified M.O.1
and M.O.2. which he had seen at the police station. The evidence
regarding the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 is certainly not
satisfactory. But recovery of weapon(s) used in the commission of
an offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused [See
Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas, AIR 2013 SC
3334 ; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2015)11 SCC
69 ; Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017)11 SCC 195 ;
Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021)7 SCC 188 ; State through the
Inspector of Police v. Laly alias Manikandan, AIR 2022 SC
5034).