Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.69 seconds)
Photu Lal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 September, 2025 cites

Harendra Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2023

In this conspectus, as above, having applied the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, as discussed above, summoning of Prem Narayan, as sought for by the present applicant in his application under Section 311 CrPC, is not essential for the just decision of the case; inasmuch as he has made statement solely based on the information he received. He has no direct knowledge about the incident in question, as averred in the FIR. He is neither an ocular witness nor a material witness. The Investigating Officer, having considered the statement of the witness (Prem Narayan) under Section 161 CrPC, came to the conclusion that his statement does not corroborate the incident mentioned in the FIR, thus, did not include his name in the list of witness in the charge sheet. A hearsay statement cannot, prima facie, be considered credible evidence to prove the offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 CrPC moved on behalf of the present applicant. Neither has any justifiable ground been made out to pass an order to secure the ends of justice nor is there an abuse of the process of law warranting interference with the order impugned, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Learned trial court has not committed any illegality, perversity or infirmity in rejecting the application (paper No. 58-Kha) filed on behalf of the first informant (applicant herein) under Section 311 CrPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 3 - V Nath - Full Document
1   2 Next