Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 May, 2007
Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Suman vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009(4) RCR
(Criminal) 908, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a
person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the
allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, the
Court is to be prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any
offence for which he can be tried with other accused.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Pal Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 February, 2009
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the similar situation in
Ram Pal (supra) and held as under: -
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bholu Ram vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 29 August, 2008
The contention of learned Senior counsel for respondents No.2
and 3 that case is at the fag end and is at the stage of recording of the
Crl. Revision No.75 of 2012 (O&M)
-8-
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, respondents cannot be
summoned after long delay, cannot be sustained in view of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholu Ram vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 187, wherein a person was summoned
as additional accused after 8 years of filing of FIR and commencement
of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
Michael Machado & Anr vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr on 17 February, 2000
On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondents
No.2 and 3 stated that it is a discretion of the Court to summon a person
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as such the same cannot be interfered with.
Learned Senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michel Machado and another
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2000) 3 SCC 62.
Learned Senior counsel further contended that trial is almost at the fag
end and is for recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as such
the petition should be dismissed. Learned Senior counsel further
submitted that eyewitness count of Gulshan PW1 cannot be accepted as
there is no probability of conviction of the respondents.
Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 August, 1962
In the case of
Babu Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) RCR (Criminal) 818 Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that mere non-mentioning of name of the PW in the
FIR is not sufficient to impeach his veracity. If the witness is found to
be independent and reliable and is believed to be present during the
occurrence then his evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that
his name was not mentioned in the FIR.