Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh vs Republic Of India on 21 January, 2011
86. There is no controversy to the proposition of law that mere
S.C. No. 76/08 77 of 7
78
absence and abscondance of accused may not be taken and treated
to be a guilty brain and conduct. It has been held in a case Ravinder
Kumar Pal Vs Republic of India 2011 (2) SCC 490 that in case a
person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may
not be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to
draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against
doctrine of innocence . It is quiet possible that he may be running
away merely being suspected, out of fear of the police arrest.
Shri Bhagwan Dass Sood vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 25 October, 1996
In Bhagwan Dass case accused appellant was
none else but father of his victim deceased daughter and the motive
behind killing was a belief of appellant that his daughter was living in
a incestuous relationship with her near relation. In the present case
accused have been attributed a motive that victim deceased dare to
develop and proceed in love affairs with the sister of accused Vikas
Yadas. Such a situation may not describe the case as a murder
committed as '' honour'' killing.
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
61. When submission of Ld APP is considered it appears from
record that accused Sukhdev Yadav had been named as coaccused
by accused Vikas and Vishal Yadav in their confessional statement
though which is inadmissible in evidence. But obviously there was
no apparent reason for name of this accused being mentioned by
them as their accomplice then testimony of constable Satender Pal
Singh provides a credibility to the prosecution theory that accused
Sukhdev @ Pehlwan was in the company of accused Vikas and
Vishal Yadav on the intervening night of incident of this case. We
cannot reject testimony of Ct.Satender Pal Singh as unacceptable
and unbelievable. At the most witness may brought in a category
S.C. No. 76/08 53 of 7
54
that he is neither wholy reliable nor holy unreliable witness
(Vadhivelu Thevar Vs State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614). The court
may seek corroboration and assurance to such evidence.
62 The other prosecution witness Ct.Inderjit PW12 who was in
the company of Ct.Surender Pal during inspection and checking of
the vehicles has completely resiled. He was declared hostile.
According to this witness accused Vikas and Vishal Yadav and victim
deceased Nitish Katara were seen in two different vehicles which
passed through their checking point in an interval of 15/20 minutes.
This was none of the prosecution case from his 161 Cr P.C
statement but witness denied to have given any 161 Cr P.C
statement. If no 161 Cr P.C statement was given by this witness.
then how come he was aware of the facts of the present case
incidents is nowhere clear from his testimony. A witness hostile to
the prosecution case is to be discarded entirely unless the court finds
any fact appearing from his testimony as acceptable and reliable.
This witness in cross examination on behalf of accused deposed that
Ct.Satender Pal was sitting inside their vehicle and had not come out
of his vehicle when this witness was checking the vehicles. How
come the witness deposed this fact unless he had got himself
recorded as a witness to the investigating officer and thereby he
S.C. No. 76/08 54 of 7
55
remained conscious of the incident of this case and remained alive
to any such fact as deposed in cross examination. This witness had
turned hostile and resiled in the earlier trial against Vikas and Vishal
Yadav also and has been condemned in the earlier judgment.
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
Gunnana Pentayya @ Pentadu & Ors vs State Of A.P on 20 August, 2008
In
a case Gunnana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (11) SCALE 557
it has been held that unless the investigating officer was categorically
asked as to why there was delay in examination of witness, defence
could not take advantage therefrom. Admittedly no question has
been put to the IO as to why and how a delay occurred in recording
police statement of this witness. As seen above witness was on a
duty checking the vehicles and he did not observe any untoward or
alarming fact which could suggest that witness was expected to react
in a particular manner. During investigation if the witness was shown
the photograph by the IO for getting victim deceased identified
whether seen by the witness in the company of some person on that
night of the incident, the delay in recording statement of the witness
by the IO cannot be considered to affect the veracity of the witness
or affect the prosecution case.