Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suresh Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 30 March, 2000
To that extent this Court would also rely on
the analysis made in the case of Suresh Rai(supra),
inasmuch as, here in this case we have no hesitation in
recording that the informant is not a eye witness and
was sought to be introduced later on for implicating
the appellants with whom there was a long standing
enmity.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs State Of U.P. on 21 April, 1994
19. Thus on aforesaid analysis of ocular
evidence, there would be little option but to hold that
P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not the eye witnesses and the
prosecution has suppressed the earliest version given
by P.W.1 to the police in writing as with regard to the
occurrence. The importance of the First Information
Report can definitely not be over emphasized but at the
same time if the First Information Report is preceded
by a definite information, of commission of a
20
cognizable offence even though cryptic by way of
telephonic information and is followed by preparation
of the inquest report with a definite information to
the Investigating Officer that the deceased was done to
death by fire arm injuries by two of the prosecution
witnesses i.e. PW 1 and PW 2, the subsequent Fard Beyan
of PW 4 drawn and its receipt in the court after more
than 36 hours, on 29.2.2004 would by itself go to show
that the F.I.R. on the basis of which the entire
investigation was conducted was itself not fit to be
relied. Learned counsel for the appellants in this
context have rightly relied on the following passage of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehraj Singh
(L/Nk) vs State of U.P, reported in 1994(5) SCC 188, wherein, it has been held as
follows:-
1