Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Nallapati Sivaiah vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P on 26 September, 2007
35. 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).
S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972
In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972
CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
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:-
Mr. Pawan Kumar Chadha vs Adm (Hq) Revenue Department, Govt. Of ... on 17 August, 2009
28. Furthermore, the testimony of PWs shows that sketch of knife PW-1/A, seizure memo
Ex. PW-1/B was prepared before sending the rukka. However, perusal of the said
documents clearly shows that the FIR number and other particulars of the present case
are mentioned on the said document. No explanation has come from the prosecution
to justify as to how the FIR number surfaced on those document which were prepared
prior to the registration of the case thereby substantiating 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 documents were 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 documents. At this stage,
FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.10 of 15
reference can also be made of a case titled as Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn. 1987
CC Cases 585 Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that the mention of
FIR number on recovery memo etc which were prepared prior to lodging the FIR
creates doubt and benefit should go to the accused.
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
25. 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 place was residential area and one or two persons from the locality
could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being
made from the appellant.