Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.69 seconds)Section 49 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Nallapati Sivaiah vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P on 26 September, 2007
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon
the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused
the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the
accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati
Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT
454(SC).
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
24. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during
investigation in a criminal cases, reliance may be placed on the following
case laws:
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2)
C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has
observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in
such cases it should be shown by the police that
sincere efforts have been made to join independent
witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no
such sincere efforts have been made, particularly
when we find that shops were open and one or two
shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the
raiding party to witness the recovery being made from
the appellant.
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998
In case law Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC
1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:
"that the recovery is proved by three police officials who
have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the
petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a
street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And,
yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not
that in every case the police officials are to be treated as
unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses
from the public especially when they are available at
their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt.
They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its
rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
Mr. Pawan Kumar Chadha vs Adm (Hq) Revenue Department, Govt. Of ... on 17 August, 2009
29. Furthermore, the testimony of PW2 and PW3, record and the
perusal of rukka Ex. PW2/B shows that the seizure memo of six bags
containing alleged 123 turtles Ex. PW2/A were prepared prior to the
dispatch of the Rukka and registration of the FIR. However, perusal of
the said documents clearly shows that the FIR number and other
particulars of the present case are mentioned on the said documents. No
explanation has come from the prosecution to justify as to how the FIR
number surfaced on those documents which were prepared prior to the
registration of the case which being a material omission substantiates the
defence version that the alleged recovery was planted at the police
station and nothing was recovered from the spot from the possession of
the accused. This fact casts a doubt upon the testimony of PWs and
entire prosecution version because if the said document was prepared
prior to the registration of the present case, then how the FIR number as
well as other particulars of the present case surfaced on the said
document. At this stage, reference can also be made of a case titled as
Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn.