Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.76 seconds)
Yogesh Kumar @ Bunty vs State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 30 April, 2014 cites

C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010

In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402], the following discussion and conclusions are relevant which are as follows: (SCC p. 589, para 55) "55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given Crl.A. 580/2010 Page 18 of 21 to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 633 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2004

1972 SCC (Cri) 659] this Court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence given in court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab [(2004) 3 SCC 654 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 851] , held: (SCC p. 657, para 5) "5. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 371 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Paras Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 12 January, 1999

28. Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the Court in Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104] enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party......."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 216 - M B Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next