Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.41 seconds)Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dandu Jaggaraju vs State Of A.P on 20 July, 2011
2. The grounds canvassed by Learned Counsel for the
Appellant were that, the Appellant was not known to the victim,
P.W.8 or her cousin, P.W.2, at the time of the alleged offence, but
no Test Identification Parade (in short "T. I. Parade") was
conducted to confirm his identification, whereas they identified
him in the Court for the first time, thereby making his
identification doubtful. To fortify this submission, reliance was
placed on Karan and Others vs. State of Kerala1, Rajesh Govind
Jagesha vs. State of Maharashtra2 as also Dana Yadav alias Dahu and
Others vs. State of Bihar3 and Dandu Jaggaraju vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh4.
State Of Gujarat vs Jivabhai Kishanbhai Solanki & Ors on 18 June, 2014
22. Coming to the question of non-production of the
seized articles, reliance was placed on Kishanbhai5 (supra). It was
held therein that the said case being one, inter alia, under
Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, there has now been a great
advancement in scientific investigation and the investigating
agency ought to have sought DNA profiling of the blood sample
which would have given a clear picture whether or not the blood
of the victim Gomi was, in fact on the clothes of the respondent-
accused Kishanbhai. The matter ended in an acquittal due to
insensitive handling of the matter by the investigating agency. In
the said case, the six year old victim died as a result of the crime
and thus the case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence
and would have substantially benefitted from DNA profiling. In
the instant case although it is true that the I.O. has failed to
exhibit or explain the fate of vaginal and vulval wash of the victim
or the blood sample of the Appellant collected for DNA profiling,
yet this Court has to be alive to the undisputed fact that the
victim is living to narrate the gruesome incident and her evidence
is not faltering with regard to the identification of the Appellant
and the act committed on her, duly corroborated by the medical
examination of P.W.11.
Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015
3. (2002) 7 SCC 295 4. (2011) 14 SCC 674
Crl.A.No.03 of 2016 3
Akbar Ali @ Md. Sentu vs. State of Sikkim
the Appellant and the other labourers who were executing the
works at Pakyong at the relevant time, no reasons being
furnished for their non-production thus withholding material
evidence, for which reliance was placed on State of Gujarat vs.
Kishanbhai and Others5 and Tomaso Bruno and Another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh6. That, as per the I.O., the Appellant was using a
mobile phone bearing SIM No.9932737928, which on investigation
was found to be of one Mrs. Manju Karmakar of Purulia, West
Bengal, therefore, could not be connected to the Appellant. That,
the alleged incident occurred on 11-02-2011, but the statement
of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") was recorded by the Judicial
Magistrate on 30-01-2012, almost a year after the incident raising
questions on such delay. The clothes of the victim which included
inner vest with blood stains and sickle seized by the I.O. along
with vaginal wash of the victim and the blood sample of the
Appellant, collected on his arrest on 07-01-2012, were forwarded
to the CFSL on the same day, which means the seizures made
from the victim remained with the I.O. for one year, no
explanation was furnished for the delay. The results of the blood
sample collected for DNA profiling and the vaginal wash were not
produced before the Learned Trial Court to connect the Appellant
to the alleged crime.
Radhey Shyam vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2014
15. Pointing to the evidence of P.W.3, Learned Counsel for
the Appellant had argued that the statement of witness to the
effect that he went to the place of occurrence after the victim
narrated the incident to him is not corroborated by the evidence
of the victim, P.W.8 herself. On perusal of the evidence of both
witnesses, it is clear that there is a variance inasmuch as the
victim has said that she saw her grandparents in the field nearby
while her uncle called her parents, as against the statement of
P.W.3 who said that P.W.8 narrated the incident to him.
Consideration on this aspect has to be taken of the fact that the
child of 11 years was evidently severely traumatised by the
incident as would be apparent from her conduct inasmuch as she
went home running, therefore, it is humanly impossible for the
victim to recall every incident in seriatim, in any event this
discrepancy does not go to the heart of the matter and therefore,
merits no consideration. Although, the decision of Radhey Shyam7
(supra) was relied on by Learned Counsel for the Appellant on this
count, the facts therein are clearly distinguishable from the
instant one as in Radhey Shyam7 (supra) the Appellant allegedly
cut the throat of his children with a blade, in the house of his in-
laws where he was residing for treatment. The incident was
allegedly witnessed by P.W.2, brother-in-law, of the Appellant
who was a child witness.
State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Chandra on 12 April, 2005
Reliance on this
aspect was placed on Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan7, State of
Rajasthan vs. Chandgi Ram and Others8, K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh9 and Thimmareddy and Others vs. State of
Karnataka10. That, P.W.3 and P.W.8 have deposed that blood was
coming out from the mouth of P.W.8, but P.W.11 the Doctor who
examined the victim could find no such injury.
K. Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 2012
Reliance on this
aspect was placed on Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan7, State of
Rajasthan vs. Chandgi Ram and Others8, K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh9 and Thimmareddy and Others vs. State of
Karnataka10. That, P.W.3 and P.W.8 have deposed that blood was
coming out from the mouth of P.W.8, but P.W.11 the Doctor who
examined the victim could find no such injury.
Thimmareddy & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2014
Reliance on this
aspect was placed on Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan7, State of
Rajasthan vs. Chandgi Ram and Others8, K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh9 and Thimmareddy and Others vs. State of
Karnataka10. That, P.W.3 and P.W.8 have deposed that blood was
coming out from the mouth of P.W.8, but P.W.11 the Doctor who
examined the victim could find no such injury.
Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State Of Assam on 28 May, 2013
17. It was also canvassed by the Appellant that the
Learned Trial Court arrived at the finding that the Appellant was
guilty as he had absconded, but this has been eschewed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Sujit Biswas11 (supra)
wherein it was held that a person against whom an FIR has been
lodged may abscond apprehending arrest, but his mere
absconsion cannot mean he is guilty. In the said matter (Sujit
Biswas11), it may be noticed that contrary to the case at hand, the
Appellant had absconded as he was "named" in the FIR, but in the
case at hand the FIR was lodged against an unknown labourer.