Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.51 seconds)
Suresh @ Bona vs State on 2 July, 2013 cites

Munsh1 Prasad And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 10 October, 2001

Relying upon this authority in Munshi Prasad and Ors vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031, it was held that defence witnesses are not to be treated differently from Crl. A. No. 941/2010 Page 23 of 38 prosecution witnesses. The evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be tainted only by reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by the defence. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as those of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with those of the prosecution. That being so, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW-1 Smt. Sunita and DW-2 Arti, that witness Laxman Indoria and accused are related to each other and their relations are strained. In fact, the same has also not been challenged by learned public prosecutor, as even no suggestion to the contrary was given to the witness. This material fact has not only been suppressed by the witness, but in fact he even denied the suggestion to this effect given by the defence counsel In this scenario, the testimony of Laxman Indoria is required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 182 - Full Document

Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2008

23. It is further the case of prosecution that after the arrest, the accused persons were interrogated. Accused Vikas @ Sunil made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-13/B. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, he led the police officials to his house No. 6461/1, Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi Karim from where he got recovered one half pant/knicker which was stained with blood and one Iraqi Dinar of the value of Rs. 25,000/- lying underneath a newspaper from his almirah, which were separately seized. Admittedly, there is no independent witness to the recovery of both these items despite the fact that recovery is alleged to have been effected from the house of accused Crl. A. No. 941/2010 Page 28 of 38 and it has been admitted by both the police officials, i.e., ASI Ashwini and Inspector Joginder Singh that family members of the accused were present in the house at that time. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they were not asked to join the recovery proceedings. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that such recovery was effected, the question is whether the same implicates the accused or not, inasmuch as, half pant was sent to FSL. As per the report although blood was detected on the same, which was of human origin but blood group could not be opined. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty that the blood, which was found on the half pant of the accused, was that of the deceased. Similar view was taken in Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 2010; State vs. Shahid Mian, 2010 (166) DLT 350 Moreover, there was no occasion for the accused to retain blood stained half pant at his house after the commission of offence. As such, this circumstance is not reliable to establish the guilt of accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 226 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

State(Delhi Administration) vs Shahid Mian And Anothers on 16 July, 2009

23. It is further the case of prosecution that after the arrest, the accused persons were interrogated. Accused Vikas @ Sunil made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-13/B. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, he led the police officials to his house No. 6461/1, Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi Karim from where he got recovered one half pant/knicker which was stained with blood and one Iraqi Dinar of the value of Rs. 25,000/- lying underneath a newspaper from his almirah, which were separately seized. Admittedly, there is no independent witness to the recovery of both these items despite the fact that recovery is alleged to have been effected from the house of accused Crl. A. No. 941/2010 Page 28 of 38 and it has been admitted by both the police officials, i.e., ASI Ashwini and Inspector Joginder Singh that family members of the accused were present in the house at that time. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they were not asked to join the recovery proceedings. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that such recovery was effected, the question is whether the same implicates the accused or not, inasmuch as, half pant was sent to FSL. As per the report although blood was detected on the same, which was of human origin but blood group could not be opined. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty that the blood, which was found on the half pant of the accused, was that of the deceased. Similar view was taken in Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 2010; State vs. Shahid Mian, 2010 (166) DLT 350 Moreover, there was no occasion for the accused to retain blood stained half pant at his house after the commission of offence. As such, this circumstance is not reliable to establish the guilt of accused.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 19 - A Bharihoke - Full Document
1   2 Next