Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)

State Of Gujarat vs Bai Fatima & Anr on 19 March, 1975

19.It was also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the seizure of wire used for theft and preparation of inspection documents are not shown in the video. PW3 has given detailed deposition about removal of wire, its seizure as well as preparation of inspection documents in the testimony sheet. Accused has not disputed the factum of removal of the illegal wire and its seizure in connected matter being common wire through which theft of electricity was being committed. Theft of electricity was being committed at the first and the second floor and accordingly both floors were booked the FIR at hand for first floor and FIR No.86/2021 for second floor of the premises were registered. Accordingly the illegal, being common source of theft, was seized in FIR No.86/2021 titled as State vs Fatima. No doubt was cast upon identity of accused visible in the video or the identity of inspected premises except that premises number is not visible in the video. Manner of commission of theft has been videographed/PW2. It is settled that videography proceedings or even seizure of illegal cable or device used for commission of direct theft is only to lend corroboration to the oral testimony.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 144 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next