Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)
Bhaartari S/O Kailash Baheliya And 2 ... vs The State Of Mah, Thr Pso, Gondia City on 18 March, 2026
cites
Section 4 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Arms Act, 1959
State Of Orissa vs Mr. Brahmananda Nanda on 31 August, 1976
A similar view has been taken in Alil Mollah (supra) and Mr.
Brahmananda Nanda (supra), wherein it has been held that unexplained
delay in disclosing the incident or failure to promptly inform the authorities
materially affects the reliability of the witness.
Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2012
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that while there
cannot be uniformity in human reaction, a Court has to keep in mind that if
the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and not in accord with acceptable
human behaviour, then his testimony becomes questionable and can likely be
discarded. The same has been discussed in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v.
State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 as reproduced below-
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 October, 2022
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where
panch witnesses admit that their signatures were obtained on prepared
documents or that they had not actually witnessed the seizure, the
evidentiary value of such panchnamas becomes doubtful and cannot be safely
relied upon. (Rajesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC
521; Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC
497; Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 4 SCC
Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 1995
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where
panch witnesses admit that their signatures were obtained on prepared
documents or that they had not actually witnessed the seizure, the
evidentiary value of such panchnamas becomes doubtful and cannot be safely
relied upon. (Rajesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC
521; Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC
497; Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 4 SCC
Valsala vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 1993
35. The prosecution has also failed to establish the safe custody and
sealing of the seized articles. The evidence does not clearly show with whom
the seized weapons and clothes remained after seizure and whether the seals
remained intact till the articles were sent for chemical analysis. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Valsala v. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 665 and
State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, (1980) 3 SCC 303 has emphasized that
21 apeal 786-08 & 57-09.odt
where the prosecution fails to establish the chain of custody and integrity of
the seized articles, reliance on such evidence becomes unsafe.