Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.49 seconds)

State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash Sharma on 21 July, 2008

"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub­Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW­7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the Page 15 of 19 ACMM/E/KKDC/Delhi/06/01/2020 FIR No. 30/2014, PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs Parveen Sharma number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 282 - A Kabir - Full Document

Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988

I get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court of India in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1334 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next