Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
State vs . Imran on 10 May, 2023 cites

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

11. Another material thing which is required to be discussed about the case of prosecution is the departure and arrival entry maintain by the police officer. As per the Punjab Police Rule, it is mandatory for every police officer to make his departure and arrival entry in DD register of the PS. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. PW1 was asked about the departure entry in his cross examination and in reply he deposed that "I had made the departure entry for the patrolling duty but I do not remember the said DD entry". This fact was also affirmed by the PW2 in his cross FIR No. 660/2022 PS Bh. Dairy State Vs. Imran Page 10 of 15 examination. In the present case, complete departure or the arrival entries have not been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on "Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29".
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr on 7 July, 2003

As a general principle, it can be stated that error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the accused. (Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja AIR 2003 SC 2612). If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the I.O cannot render FIR No. 660/2022 PS Bh. Dairy State Vs. Imran Page 11 of 15 the case of the prosecution doubtful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 418 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 1998

If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect or negligence in investigation cannot adversely affect the prosecution case, though the court should be circumspect in evaluating the evidence (Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1850, Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 644, Dhanraj Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920, Ram Bali vs. State of U.P. AIR 2004 SC 2329).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 352 - Full Document

Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2004

13. As far as the defective and illegal investigation is concerned, Apex Court held that If investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent of the impact of the faulty investigation; otherwise criminal trial will descend to the I.O ruling the roost. Yet if the court is convinced that the evidence of eyewitnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the I.O in the case is suspicious. (Abu Thakir, AIR 2010 SC 2119). An accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation; to do so would be playing into the hands of the I.O whose investigation was defective by design. (Dhanaj Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920). Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 371 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next