Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2011
However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the
recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with
elements of doubts. We may hasten to add that circumstance
such as (I) the period of interval between the malfeasance and the
disclosure; (ii) commonality of the recovered object and its
availability in the market; (iii) nature of the object and its relevance
to the crime; (iv) ease of transferability of the object; (v) the
testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the
Court and / or other like factors, are weighty considerations that
aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the
recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. the State; Pancho vs. State of
Haryana; State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr. and Bharama
FIR no. 222/14 PS Jagatpuri State vs Sikander Rai Page 12 of 15
Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka).
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
12. It was inter-alia held in "Anoop Joshi vs. State" 1992 (2) CC Cases 314
(HC) that sincere efforts shall always be made by the police to join the
independent witnesses. It has further in held in series of cases that failure of
joining of independent witnesses at the time of recovery of stolen article shall cast
a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. In the facts of the present case,
since the recovery has been effected from the house of the accused in the
presence of the complainant, it is difficult to believe that there were no public
persons available during the alleged recovery.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tulsiram Kanu vs The State on 29 January, 1951
However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the
recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with
elements of doubts. We may hasten to add that circumstance
such as (I) the period of interval between the malfeasance and the
disclosure; (ii) commonality of the recovered object and its
availability in the market; (iii) nature of the object and its relevance
to the crime; (iv) ease of transferability of the object; (v) the
testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the
Court and / or other like factors, are weighty considerations that
aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the
recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. the State; Pancho vs. State of
Haryana; State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr. and Bharama
FIR no. 222/14 PS Jagatpuri State vs Sikander Rai Page 12 of 15
Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka).