Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Hem Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 29 March, 2005
In the case of "Hem Raj Vs State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2010, it
has been observed that :
"The fact that no independent witness though
available, was examined and not even an explanation was
sought to be given for not examining such witness is a
FIR No. 17 of 2008 State Vs Rohit Singh & Deepak Mandal Page 7 of 14
serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Amongst the
independent witnesses one who was very much in the
know of things from the beginning was not examined by
the prosecution. Nonexamination of independent witness
by itself may not given rise to adverse inference against
the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the
alleged eyewitnesses raise serious doubts on the point of
their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the
unexplained omission to examine the independent witness
would assume significance."
D.V. Shanmugham & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997
In the case of "D.V.Shanmugham Vs State of A.P" AIR 1997 SC
26583", it has been observed as under:
"It also appeared from the evidence of PW2
and PW8 that there were several other people who
witnessed the occurrence and they are not the residents of
that locality. If such independent witnesses were
available and yet were not examined by the prosecution
and only those persons who are related to the deceased
were examined then in such a situation, the prosecution
case has to be scrutinized with more care and caution".
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
In the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs The Delhi Administration", 1989
FIR No. 17 of 2008 State Vs Rohit Singh & Deepak Mandal Page 8 of 14
Cr.LJ 127 Delhi, in which it was observed as follows:
"Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of
the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of
rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar.
Roop Chand And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2009
In "ROOP CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA
1990 (1) CLR 69", it was observed that such explanations are unreliable.
Chanan Singh Son Of Kartar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 1971
In the case of "Chanan Singh Vs State" 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720
(P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join
independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused
to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
Sahib Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1996
In the case of "Sahib Singh Vs State of Punjab" AIR 1997 SC 2417,
it has been held as under:
"Having gone through the record, we find
much substance in each of the above contentions.
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Massa Singh And Another vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1) ... on 3 December, 2008
In the case of "Massa Singh Vs State of Punjab" 2000 (2) CC Cases
HC 11, conviction was set aside on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of
investigating officer to take assistance of independent witnesses to lend
authenticity to the investigation conducted by him. It was observed as under:
"The recovery has been effected from a
public place. The investigating officer could have
taken the trouble to associate an independent witness
to get the attestation of such independent witness
regarding the authenticity of the investigation
conducted by him. This aspect of the case has not
been properly appreciated by the Court below."