Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.86 seconds)Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2014
21. Learned counsel for the appellants next relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Vs. State of
Karnataka 2014(3) Supreme 460 Paragraph 70 and submitted that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014
33
defect in investigation by not explaining the circumstances in which
the three dead bodies were transported to the police station for
preparing their inquest report not only creates doubt about the time,
place of recovery of the dead bodies but also bring the prosecution
case of assault by these appellants on the three deceased in the
category of not proved and doubtful.
Ajodhya Bhagat And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 13 August, 1974
22. Learned counsel for the appellants next referred to
the judgment of the this Court in the case of Ajodhya Singh and
others Vs. State of Bihar 1988(1) Crimes 749 and submitted that in
a case of murder if motive is introduced prosecution must prove the
same otherwise adverse inference may be drawn against the
prosecution.
Syed Ibrahim vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 July, 2006
23. Learned counsel for the appellants next referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 CRI.L.J. 4087 Paragraphs 10, 11
and submitted that Latin Maxim " falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"
Gauri Shanker Sharma Etc vs State Of U.P. Etc on 12 January, 1990
24. Learned counsel for the appellants next referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shanker Vs. State
of U.P. AIR 1975 Supreme Court 757 Paragraph 11 and submitted
that First Information Report of a case can ordinarily be used only for
the purpose of corroborating, contradicting or discrediting its author
if examined and not otherwise. In the instant case, learned counsel
Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014
36
submitted that contents of written report (Exhibit-1), which is the
basis of the First Information Report of the instant case, having been
signed by not only the informant (P.W. 4) but also by other three eye-
witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 3) the said written report can very well be used
for corroborating, contradicting or discrediting not only P.W. 4 but
also P.Ws. 1 to 3.
Ram Kumar Pande vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 1975
25. Learned counsel next referred to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1026 Paragraph 9
and submitted that no doubt First Information Report is a previous
statement which can only be used to corroborate or contradict the
maker of it but omission of important facts affecting the probabilities
of the case are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. In the
reported case the names of the eye-witnesses were not mentioned in
the First Information Report which lead the courts to doubt their
evidence and submitted that in the case in hand written report
(Exhibit 1) which has been submitted after about 12 hours of the
occurrence, that too after receiving expert advice from Lalu Mukhiya,
the scribe of the written report and Laxmi Prasad Ex-Pramukh,
witness of inquest report (Exhibits 6/1, 6/2) but not examined, yet did
not indicate the source of identification i.e. vapour light fixed in the
electric pole and the torch, the omission to indicate source of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014
37
identification in the written report is fatal for the prosecution case and
for not indicating the source of identification in the earliest version
prosecution case is fit to be disbelieved.
State Of Punjab vs Mohri Ram on 7 April, 1993
26. Learned counsel for the appellants next referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
Vs. Mohri Ram and others 1994 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases
632 Paragraphs 4, 5 and submitted that no doubt First Information
Report is not substantive evidence but when the author of the report
consistently speaks with a version given in the First Information
Report then the Court can look into the evidence as well, as the
earlier version is not for the purpose of mere scrutiny of the evidence
but to examine whether the very version given by the witness could
be accepted and if the Court finds the earliest version given is
suspicious and if the witness completely falls in line with such a
version then such evidence also becomes suspicious. In the instant
case, learned counsel submitted that the First Information Report
describes part played by each of the three assailants who fired shots
from their fire-arms and the manner in which injuries were caused
and the three victims fell down on the ground. Existence of vapour,
torch light having not been mentioned in the First Information Report
and introduced for the first time during recording of evidence in
Court itself cast doubt about the availability of the source of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014
38
identification at the place of occurrence and in such view of the
matter to indicate the manner in which repeated shots were fired by
the three assailants as disclosed in the written report, according to
learned counsel, does not appear convincing and can be termed as
recording of evidence in a parrot like manner which creates suspicion
about the veracity of the evidence.
Sevi And Anr. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 3 March, 1981
27. Learned counsel for the appellants next referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sevi and another
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another AIR 1981 Supreme Court
1230 and submitted that where the entire evidence is of partisan
character impartial investigation can lend assurance to the Court to
enable it to accept such partisan evidence. But where in a murder
case the investigation itself is found to be tainted in the sense that the
original First Information Report was suppressed by the police it
becomes difficult for the Court to sift the evidence and the evidence
of partisan eye-witnesses cannot be accepted.
Balaka Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 1975
28. Learned counsel for the appellants finally referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balaka Singh and
others Vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1962.
Perusal whereof indicates that Supreme Court having considered the
evidence of the informant and the contents of the inquest, First
Information Report concluded that First Information Report was
Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014
39
drawn not only after preparation of inquest report but also after the
time indicated in the First Information Report and there was
subsequent attempt to include the name of the accused persons in the
inquest report, as is required by Punjab Police Manual and in
appreciation of such fact held that the case of the prosecution
becomes extremely doubtful and then acquitted even those who were
convicted by the High Court.
Ajayab Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 1986
29. Learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1003 of 2013 referred to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ajayab Singh and others Vs. State of
Rajasthan 1986 CRI.L.J. 1495 Paragraphs 21, 22 and Nagesar
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 672
Paragraphs 3, 6, 10 to 14 and submitted that mere presence of the
appellants with arms along with the assailants of the three deceased
will not constitute offence under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code
unless there is further evidence to indicate that these appellants also
had knowledge of the common object of the assembly of which the
assailants were the member and committed the offence. In this
connection he also submitted that there has been no recovery of any
arms from these appellants. On merit of the evidence learned counsel
pointed out that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is
quite established that the deceased having suffered gun shot fell down
Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014
40
at the place where they suffered injury but the recovery of the dead
body from the two different places far away from the place where
shots were fired is indicative of the fact that prosecution has not been
able to prove the place of occurrence in the present case.