Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Criminal Revision No.95/15 vs The State on 3 November, 2015 cites

Jai Bhagwan And Others vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1999

5. I have gone through the trial court record. Though in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that his wife made arrangement of Rs.20 lakhs. However, during the investigation she was not examined by the police. Neither her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded nor she was cited as a prosecution witness. PW­2 was partly examined in the Court on 06.11.2003. His examination in chief was deferred at the request of Ld. APP on that day on the ground that PW­2 was resiling from his earlier statement and he wanted to cross­examine him after going through the file on next date. PW­2 could not be Criminal Revision No. 95/15 Page 2 of 3 Jai Bhagwan Vs. The State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 120 - Full Document

Madan Mohan Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 February, 1999

examined further in the Court as he expired during the trial. In the application, the State has sought the examination of wife of PW­2 as prosecution witness as she was not inadvertently cited as a witness. It is the settled law that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to fill up the lacuna in the case of the prosecution. This power cannot be exercised in routine or cavalier manner. For taking this view, I am supported with the judgment­Surender Choudhary (Supra). As per the contents of the FIR, wife of PW­2 only handed over an amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the accused on the instructions of her husband. She cannot be said to be a material witness in this case that her examination is necessary for the just decision of the case. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why the wife of PW­2 was not examined as a prosecution witness during investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 86 - Full Document
1