Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)
S.Chandrasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 29 July, 2021 cites

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

16.In the judgment reported in 2017 (16) SCC 226 – (S.Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of Court to summon persons, not named in the charge sheet, to face on going trial - nature of evidence that may be relied upon for exercise of the powers and law laid down by the Hon'ble Five Judge Bench in 2014 (3) SCC 92 – Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, clarified wherein, it is been held that merely because, the name of the petitioners are mentioned in the FIR and also the statement witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it is not open to the Court to relied upon the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C has independent witness, the same only be corroborating material. Further, the standard of evidence required for exercising the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C viz, strong and cogent http://www.judis.nic.in 9/14 Crl.R.C.No.703 of 2018 evidence in the absence of suggestive and co-gent evidence merely because of any assertion of statement of PW1 in the witnesses box during the Trial, the Court cannot exercise the power to add any accused in the on going trial, because the power to be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person and not casual and cavalier manner. In respect of the word “evidence” is required to be brought before the Court Trial. The material evidence collected by the investigation officer at the state of enquiry may be utilized only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded and examined from the trial by the Court to invoke the power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 114 - Cited by 1591 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next