Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (2.69 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr vs State Of Assam on 16 January, 2007
The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior Counsel, is the one Bishnu Prasad Sinha and Anr. v. State of Assam wherein, in paragraph No. 57, the Supreme Court had held as hereunder:
Laxmi Raj Shetty And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 April, 1988
20. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, defending the State would primarily attack the credibility of the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 contending that their evidence is only in the nature of hear-say evidence. If they have perceived a fact personally and if they report that fact in paper, then, the criteria in appreciating the same would be totally different. On the other hand, when a matter reported in the paper is not their personal perception of facts but it is only from another source, then it is in the nature of hear-say evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 1988 SCC Crl. Pg. 633 Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, brought to our notice by Mr. B. Sriramulu learned senior Counsel, had held that the report in a paper is only in the nature of hear-say evidence. Therefore this Court must eliminate the entire evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. D.1 to D.14, which undoubtedly show that they have not perceived any fact personally from a spot inspection or a spot enquiry but they have perceived the facts from some other source. If that is done, then, there is nothing on record to show or even a remote chance to infer that A1 to A3 were in the police net even on 11.11.2005, which alone would enable this Court to doubt the arrest of A1 and A2 on 15.11.2005 and A3 on 27.11.2005. By taking us through the records namely, remand report for A1 and A2 and the remand report for A3 before court (A1 and A2 were produced before the same court while A3 was produced before another court), it is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the remand Magistrate had not even noted in the remand report that any of the accused had complained of any ill-treatment or illegal custody. Therefore in the absence of any noting in the respective remand reports about any mal-treatment or illegal custody of any of the accused with the police as argued now before this Court and if the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 coupled with Exs. D.1 to D.16, is eliminated from consideration for the reasons stated by him, then, there is no legal material at all to doubt the arrest of the accused (A1 and A2 on 15.11.2005 and A3 on 27.11.2005) as spoken to by the prosecution. It may be true that P.W. 15 is the only witness, who was present throughout at all times with P.W. 21. Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to a case where search is made. Here admittedly no search of any house is made and therefore the requirement of Section 100(4) of the Code need not be complied with. It is argued by the State Counsel that having regard to the difficulties which courts in India are experiencing in dealing with cases in which witnesses are turning hostile for no rhyme or reason, this Court should not disbelieve the credibility of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the arrest and recovery on the sole ground that Government official witnesses alone are made available for such arrest and recovery. According to him, police officers, in the current situation, would not be committing any mistake in choosing a Government official alone, since atleast to certain extent, police officers may be confident that the witnesses will not let down the prosecution at a later stage. It may be true that in the evidence of P.Ws. 15 and 21 there is contradiction as to who exactly wrote the records. That by itself, according to the State Counsel, would not discredit the evidence of P.Ws. 15 and 21 regarding the arrest and recovery, if this Court is fully convinced that their evidence on material aspects is otherwise found to be trustworthy. In this case jewels weighing nearly 163.25 sovereigns are found to have been stolen, which were recovered in addition to 33-1/2 kgs of silverwares, which was also recovered. Such is the huge volume of the stolen articles, which no police officer can even dream of planting on any particular accused just to fabricate the case based on such recovery. Therefore it is argued that the entire arrest and recovery must be believed. As far the silence on the part of P.W. 4 till 11.11.2005 is concerned, it is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.W. 4 had no suspicion at all whatsoever in his mind on 09.11.2005 when he saw A1 to A3 entering the house of the deceased. Even if he had any suspicion in such movement, it is on record that when he brought it to the notice of Arumugam (owner of Sumangali Jewellers - list witness No. 7 - not examined in court), he had been simply brain washed by him stating that as they are already known to each other, there is nothing serious. Therefore it is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.W. 4 would not have even had the slightest doubt in his mind on 10.11.2005 when he came to know about the incident, that A1 would have had a role to play in the murder. It is available on record that A1 had gained the confidence of Sheela and he was always by her side. Therefore the argument is that, P.W. 4's conduct in keeping silent till 11.11.2005 cannot be viewed seriously. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in meeting the argument based on Bankers' Book Evidence Act not being complied with, would argue that this is not a case where the relief - as it is done in civil cases - is based on the documents supplied by the bank and only in that, the requirement of the said Act must be complied with. According to him, the documents enclosed to Ex. P.9 are relied upon to show a collateral transaction namely, on two particular days Mohan Rao (D1) pledged certain articles with the bank; on a particular day, Sheela (D2) pledged certain articles with the bank and on 27.10.2005, those articles were redeemed by the borrowers by paying the principal and the interest. By this exercise - according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution wants to establish that the articles recovered in this case after the arrest of the accused in fact belonged to the deceased, which they had pledged earlier and which they were in possession in all probability on the day when the crime was committed. Therefore it is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the failure on the part of P.W. 12 to comply with the provisions of the said Act will not vitiate the prosecution case. On the argument developed by the learned senior Counsel about the competency of P.W. 17 giving evidence based on Police Standing Order 801, learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to our notice the Amendment made by the Tamil Nadu Government to the Prisoners' Identification Act and a Government Order issued re-designating finger print experts in the Finger Print Bureau as Inpsector of Finger Prints. Therefore it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.W. 17 is the person who is competent to examine any crime scene and lift chance prints available there.
State Of U.P vs Arun Kumar Gupta on 8 January, 2003
27. It is true that in the places where A1 and A2 came to be arrested on 15.11.2005 and in the place where A3 came to be arrested on 27.11.2005, presence of independent witnesses have been established. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported in 2003 SCC Crl. Pg. 481 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arun Kumar Gupta, it is argued by Mr. B. Sriramulu learned senior Counsel that, in the absence of any reasonable explanation for not summoning any independent witnesses residing in that locality and when presence of independent witnesses are established, the recovery shown to have been made at the instance of A1, A2 and A3 respectively only in the presence of P.W. 15 (Village Administrative Officer) must be doubted as it contravenes Sections 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that Sections 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates the procedure to be followed in searching a place. Section 100(4) of the Code mandates "calling upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate." According to him, if, in the course of such a search, any person found in such place should be searched for suspected concealing of any article, then, Sections 100(3) of the Code contemplates the procedure. In this case, such a situation had not arisen since, A1 came to be arrested in a public place namely, railway station at Salem; on his pointing out, A2 was also arrested in a public place (both on 15.11.2005), leading to the recovery and then A3 came to be arrested on 27.11.2005 leading to the recovery. It is true that P.W. 15 is not living in the locality where the arrests were made on the dates referred to earlier. Could that by itself vitiate the recovery? This question we are posing to ourselves, assuming Sections 100 of the Code is attracted to the case on hand. In 1967 Crl.
Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 December, 2006
30. Let us now address ourselves to the argument advanced by Mr. B. Sriramulu learned senior Counsel that even in normal circumstances, this case cannot be treated as a rarest of the rare case warranting death punishment and since the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, as a matter of principle, this Court will not impose death sentence. For sustaining the above referred to argument, learned senior Counsel highlighted the growing demand in the International arena for abolishing death penalty. Learned senior Counsel brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal where the Apex Court was considering the issue as to when death sentence would be justified. The Supreme Court in that judgment had held as hereunder: