Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
State vs Sonu on 5 August, 2024 cites

Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

4. The Shri Gulshan Rai Jain and Smt. Usha Jain were examined as PW1 and PW2. They both resiled from their previous statements marked PW1/A and Mark Y respectively, claimed to be recorded during investigation, did not testify anything incriminating against the accused person and had failed to identify the accused person. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Satish Mehra V. Delhi Administration & Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766, that "When the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.", examination of other witnesses was dispensed with as no purpose would have been served by examining them FIR No. 631/15 State Vs. Sonu Page 3 of 9 Digitally signed by RAJANI RAJANI RANGA Date: RANGA 2024.08.05 17:12:14 +0530 CJM/NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi as Prosecution would not have been able to prove the guilt of all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt even if they would have been examined as the prime witness/Complainant/PW1, being the complainant as well as the victim, and PW2 had resiled from their respective previous statements. Further, as no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused person, recording of statement of the accused person in terms of Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with. Defense evidence was also closed as accused opted not lead evidence in defense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document
1