Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.43 seconds)Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 175 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 306 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sarwan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 11 August, 1976
53. Analyzing the fact situation obtaining in the instant case in the light
of law laid down in Sarwan Singh‟s case (supra), we find that the appellant
nowhere in his disclosure statement has admitted that the Ligature i.e. a
plastic rope, which was recovered at his instance, was the one he had used
for committing the murder of the deceased nor can it be said that the place
where it was concealed was inaccessible and known only to the appellant.
It has come in evidence that the place from where the Ligature ( plastic
rope) was recovered, was a grazing land in the forest and visited by all the
32 CRA No.18/2017
villagers. As has also come in the statement of Arif Tak, Naib tehsildar that
such ropes are available in the market. The effort to connect the rope
seized/recovered with the rope produced before the Naib Tehsildar and
identified by PW Kuldeep, as also the rope which PW Kuldeep has seen in
the hand of the appellant near the place of occurrence on the date of
occurrence, has all failed. The rope, which was allegedly recovered from
beneath the stone at the instance of the appellant, was not sealed nor was
any identification mark put on it. It is so stated by PW Arif Tak in his
statement. In the absence of proper identification mark put on the rope and
the same having not been sealed properly, it is difficult to say that it is the
rope which was recovered at the instance of the appellant that was
produced before the Naib Tehsildar and allegedly identified by PW
Kuldeep. PW Kuldeep has turned hostile and has not supported his version.
In the light of this weak evidence one cannot, by any stretch of reasoning,
conclude that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the
fact of the appellant having made a disclosure statement that he had used
the plastic rope to strangulate his wife and that he had kept the plastic rope
hidden beneath a stone in the forest. This circumstance was vital
circumstance to be established if accused were to be connected with the
commission of crime.
Sangili @ Sanganathan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. Insp.Of Police on 10 September, 2014
54. As is held by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sangili @
Sanganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014(10) SCC 264, the burden to
establish close link between the discovery of the material object and its use
in the commission of offence lies on the prosecution. Under Section 27 of
33 CRA No.18/2017
the Evidence Act it is the information that leads to the discovery and not
the opinion that is formed on it by the prosecution which is admissible.
Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2011
In the case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan,
2011 (11) SCC 724, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in para 25 and 26 of the
judgment made the following observations:-