Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
Leela Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 7 March, 2007 cites

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State Of Delhi on 15 March, 2002

PW.2 Dr. Maghar Singh of PHC Dirba had sent the ruqa (Ex. PE) to the police station, which was received at 9:45 p.m. but even prior to that SI Harpreet Singh (PW. 6) had already recorded the statement of PW. 3 Ved Bhagwan Dass at 9:30 p.m. So much so, FIR had already been registered at 9:45 p.m. at Police Station Dirba. Further, it is only on the arrival of PW - 6 SI Harpreet Singh, at the spot, he came to know that Ram Parkash had already been removed to PHC Dirba and as such, the argument of the counsel for the appellants that if Ram Parkash was not fit to make the statement, SI Harpreet Singh should have recorded the statement of Jethu Ram, who admitted him, has no force, since by the time SI Harpreet Singh had visited the hospital, he had already recorded the statement of Ved Bhagwan Dass, on the basis of which case had already been registered. Special report, no doubt, reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 7:00 a.m. in the morning but it cannot be overlooked that it was a night time and Sunam is situated at a distance of 16-17 Kms and in the present set up no police station is having only one case to be looked into, it cannot be said that special report was so delayed that it affects the merits of the case. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that there is some delay in receipt of special report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 728, has gone to the extent that if there is a delay in dispatch of the FIR to the court and its receipt by it, that alone can in no case be taken to be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case, if otherwise the same is proved by unimpeachable evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 34 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next