Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)
State vs . Santosh @ Rani on 16 January, 2015 cites

D.V. Shanmugham & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997

In the case of "D. V. Shanmugham v. State of A.P.", AIR 1997 SC 2583 it has been observed as under : ­ "It also appeared from the evidence of PW­2 and PW­8 that there were several other people who witnessed the occurrence and they are not the residents of that locality. If such independent witnesses were available and yet were not examined by the prosecution and only those persons who are related to the deceased were examined then in such a situation the prosecution case has to be scrutinised with more care and caution."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 390 - G N Ray - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987

In the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration", 1989 Cr.LJ 127 Delhi, in which it was observed as follows :­ "Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 7.30 pm when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the Independent witnesses in case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused.''
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3061 - Full Document

Roop Chand & Anr. Etc. vs State Of Haryana . on 4 April, 2014

11. The Law in this regard has also been enunciated clearly in case titled as "Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana" reported as CC Cases 3 FIR No. 74/10 Page no. 11 of 11 (HC), wherein it was held that where the police has failed to join independent witnesses in the investigation despite their availability and further failed to take action against those who refused to take part in investigation nor their names were noted down by the police, the explanation of the police for not joining independent witnesses is an afterthought and liable to be rejected.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1437 - Full Document

Massa Singh And Another vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1) ... on 3 December, 2008

In the case of "Massa Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 2000 (2) C.C. Cases HC 11, conviction was set aside on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of investigating officer to take assistance of independent witnesses to lend authenticity to the investigation conducted by him. It was observed as under :­ "The recovery has been effected from a public place. The Investigating Officer could have taken the trouble to associate an independent witness to get the attestation of such independent witness regarding the authenticity of the investigation conducted by him. This aspect of the case has not been properly appreciated by the Court below."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 462 - Full Document
1   2 Next