Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)
Fir No. 539/2022 State vs Sunder Singh @ Pappi on 14 July, 2023 cites

State vs Hawan Pratap Singh @ Pappi & Anr on 26 September, 2019

19. In the present case, as the record would reveal that no independent public witness had joined the investigation at any point of time with respect to recovery of the incriminating poster. The place of recovery of the poster in question is clearly shown to be located in an area where public persons would be readily available. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the Police Station : Sarita Vihar Page No. 13 Of 19 FIR No. 539/2022 State Vs Sunder Singh @ Pappi society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - S Mridul - Full Document

Gurtej Singh Batth vs State on 27 November, 2018

17. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurtej Singh Batth vs State, in Crl.A.39/2015, on 27 November, 2018, while relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 974 and Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) SCC Online SC 459, has held that in every criminal prosecution, it was essential that the investigation, on the face of it, had to be free, judicious and just, and that it had also to appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine, and not a mere fanciful, apprehension, in the mind of the accused, that the investigation was not fair. If, therefore, the informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially one which carries a reverse burden of proof, who had made the allegations, was himself asked to investigate, serious doubts would naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. Actual proof of bias was not required in such a case.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 71 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2018

17. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurtej Singh Batth vs State, in Crl.A.39/2015, on 27 November, 2018, while relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 974 and Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) SCC Online SC 459, has held that in every criminal prosecution, it was essential that the investigation, on the face of it, had to be free, judicious and just, and that it had also to appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine, and not a mere fanciful, apprehension, in the mind of the accused, that the investigation was not fair. If, therefore, the informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially one which carries a reverse burden of proof, who had made the allegations, was himself asked to investigate, serious doubts would naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. Actual proof of bias was not required in such a case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 543 - N Sinha - Full Document

Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988

20. In the present case, non-joining of any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. However, this Court is conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. I get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1334 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next