Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)
State vs . Ramesh Chander on 3 March, 2022 cites

Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021

In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under: " I have heard the learned counsel for FIR No: 135/20 State v. Ramesh Chander Page No.11/14 the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very FIR No: 135/20 State v. Ramesh Chander Page No.12/14 common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 920 - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Bhagirath And Others on 12 May, 1999

In this regard, reliance can be placed on the case of State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the doctrine of benefit of doubt in the words "The FIR No: 135/20 State v. Ramesh Chander Page No.13/14 pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 414 - Full Document

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal Vs. State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the Delhi High Court has observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations & thus the matter has to be viewed by the court with suspicion, if the necessary provisions of law are not strictly complied with and then it can at least be said that it was so done with an oblique motive. This failure of the prosecution to bring on record and prove the relevant DD entries as discussed above creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on to the police officials.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document
1   2 Next