Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.58 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
12. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it appears that no sincere
efforts, have been made to join the public persons in the investigation. The
witnesses examined by the prosecution are police witness. Not even a single
public witness was examined by the prosecution nor joined in the
investigation and no plausible reason could be put forward by the prosecution
witnesses that for what reason they were unable to gather support from public
or independent witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. Reference can
be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127.
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
13. The failure on the part of the police personnel could only suggest that
they were not interested in joining the public persons in the police
proceedings. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort
to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available
creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Reference can be taken
from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC),
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964
It has been
held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
held that;
Giri Raj Singh Meena vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 January, 2014
19. Perusal of record shows that prosecution witnesses have deposed that
FIR was registered after preparation of seizure memo, accordingly, FIR
number could not have surfaced on that seizure memo, however, the seizure
memo bears the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences that either the
FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number
of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the
situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version
and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the
manner alleged. That being so, benefit arising out of such a situation must
necessarily go to the accused. Reference be made to the judgment of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201.