Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)

Sukhwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 1995

11. So far the second issue is concerned, from perusal of the record, it appears that in order to ascertain whether the seized licensee gun was used in course of occurrence or not, the same was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory examination, which is evident from Ext.-6. However, the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been brought on record by the prosecution to suggest that the recovered licensee gun of the appellant Nathuni Singh has been used in course of occurrence. The prosecution has also not produced the said licensee gun as Material Exhibit during the course of trial. The prosecution has also not explained the reason as to why the seized gun was not produced as material exhibit and as to why the FSL report was not brought on record. This is an omission on the part of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.482 of 1996 dt.15-07-2022 10/16 prosecution. Hence the allegation of the prosecution that the appellants have used the seized licensee gun in course of occurrence is not proved. At this juncture, we would like to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 1601, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 20 has held as follows: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 105 - Full Document
1   2 Next