Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Arvind @ Chuni Lal And Another vs The State Of Haryana on 5 May, 2010
PW-1 Narinder Kumar, author of FIR and the brother of the
deceased, in his statement Ex.PA has suspected son of Uday Singh resident
of Village Mehmudpur in the commission of crime along with his
Crl. Appeal No.550-DB of 2006 6
companions. It has also come on record that Joginder Singh was following
the set routine i.e. after finishing assignment with the Thermal Plant,
Panipat, he would take passengers from Panipat to Sirsadh, reaching his
house at about 10.30 pm. Since the movement of the deceased were known
to the appellants, PW-1 Narinder Kumar has correctly apprehended
commission of crime by some known person i.e. son of Uday Singh. In fact,
the disclosure statements Exs.PD and PE of Sandeep and Jaivir show that
they knew Joginder Singh. In the disclosure statements Exs.PT and PT/1
suffered by Sandeep and Jaivir in another case, it is disclosed by them that it
was Joginder Singh @ Kala, whose vehicle was robbed and Joginder Singh
killed. Therefore, the statements of the accused in respect of their
acquaintance of Joginder Singh is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act,
1872 (for short 'the Act'), but are the statements of fact admissible under
Section 8 of the Act. It was so held by the Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 405-DB of 2007 titled 'Arvind @ Chuni Lal and
another Vs. The State of Haryana' decided on 05.05.2010, wherein it was
held to the following effect: