Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
State vs . Mohd. Abdula Sheikh on 12 March, 2013 cites

State vs Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah And Ors. on 31 December, 1963

Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:­ ' It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that FIR No. 650/02 Page 5 of 6 State vs. Mohd. Abdula Sheikh the explanation for non­joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - S M Ali - Full Document
1