Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
Sc No. 449/2016 State vs . Deepak @ Raj Page 1 Of 55 on 23 February, 2018 cites

Karamjit Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) on 26 March, 2003

53. At   the   outset,   it   may   be   mentioned   that   PW2   Om Prakash has not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to the place of apprehension of the accused and JCLs   but   the   testimony   of   PW18     ASI   Subhash   Chand, PW22 SI Arvind Verma and PW23 IO/Ins. Vivekanand Jha is consistent  and trustworthy. The accused has not been able to discredit their testimony in the cross­examination. Law is well settled that the testimony of the police officials, if found trustworthy, can be safely relied upon to convict the accused and their testimony is not liable to be discarded merely because they are police officials.  Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2003 SC 1311, has  held that    the testimony of police personnel   should   be   treated   in   the   same   manner   as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law   that   without   corroboration   by   independent   witnesses their   testimony   cannot   be   relied   upon.   The   presumption that   a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police   personnel   as   from   of   other   persons   and   it   is   not proper   judicial   approach   to   distrust   and   suspect   them SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj  Page 41 of 55 without good grounds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 430 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Radhanath Patra vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 20 November, 1997

60. The accused also took a false defence that the blood stained clothes seized by the IO at the time of his arrest did not belong to him.  As noted hereinabove even this defence was   not   put   to   any   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   in  their cross­examination and was raised for the first time at the time of recording of statement of accused and the same is liable to be rejected being false and after thought.   It is a well   settled   principle   that   in   a   case   of   circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation   is   found   to   be   untrue,   then   the   false explanation of accused offers an additional link in the chain of   circumstances   to   complete   the   chain.   {See  Swepan Patra   v   State   of   West   Bengal   (1999)   9   SCC   242; Anthony D'Souza & ors v State of Karnataka 2002 (10) AD 37 (SC)}. A false answer offered by the accused when his   attention   was   drawn   to   a   circumstance   renders   that SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj  Page 49 of 55 circumstance capable of inculpating him. In such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing 'a missing link' for completing the chain.
State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Anthony D'Souza And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2002

60. The accused also took a false defence that the blood stained clothes seized by the IO at the time of his arrest did not belong to him.  As noted hereinabove even this defence was   not   put   to   any   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   in  their cross­examination and was raised for the first time at the time of recording of statement of accused and the same is liable to be rejected being false and after thought.   It is a well   settled   principle   that   in   a   case   of   circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation   is   found   to   be   untrue,   then   the   false explanation of accused offers an additional link in the chain of   circumstances   to   complete   the   chain.   {See  Swepan Patra   v   State   of   West   Bengal   (1999)   9   SCC   242; Anthony D'Souza & ors v State of Karnataka 2002 (10) AD 37 (SC)}. A false answer offered by the accused when his   attention   was   drawn   to   a   circumstance   renders   that SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj  Page 49 of 55 circumstance capable of inculpating him. In such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing 'a missing link' for completing the chain.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 69 - Full Document
1   2 Next