Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.39 seconds)Bijay vs The State (G.N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 July, 2011
PW3 Retd. SI Kanwar Pal Singh deposed that the seal after use
was handed over to PW4 Ct. Harish who also corroborated the version of the
PW5. However, it is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over
to PW5 especially when as per the case of the prosecution the independent
public persons were present at the spot. While relying upon the judgment of
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs.
State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh
Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs State Of Goa on 3 November, 2004
PW3 Retd. SI Kanwar Pal Singh deposed that the seal after use
was handed over to PW4 Ct. Harish who also corroborated the version of the
PW5. However, it is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over
to PW5 especially when as per the case of the prosecution the independent
public persons were present at the spot. While relying upon the judgment of
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs.
State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh
Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
Gurbachan Singh vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1989
Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred
guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing
justice according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others,
AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to
meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused.
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
[See State of
U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63
(SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible
doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow
out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that
it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are
prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the
meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being
punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.
Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 February, 1978
[See Inder Singh and Anr. v.
State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take place
of judicial evaluation. "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely
to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a
guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties."
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
(Per Viscount Simon in
Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State
of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable
if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any
favourite other than truth.
Santa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 February, 1956
In Desh Raj @ Dass V/s State, 83 (2000) DLT 262, while relying upon
the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab
1991CAR 81 and Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526, the
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari as His Lordship then was, took the view
that the delay of 12 days in sending the samples to the CFSL proved fatal to the
prosecution.