Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.64 seconds)

Sudhakar & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 2000

221 Much reliance has been placed by Ld. Senior counsel on the statement of PW-47 Lekh Ram Sharma during the course of argument. It is argued that from the statement of this witness it is proved that Congress Party was maintaining Camp Offices at the premises of accused and election material was supplied at 12 Safdarjung Lane in presence of this witness. Ld Senior counsel 99/150 100 has argued that statement of L.R Sharma with respect to his conversation with Mr B P Maurya is admissible in view of the fact that Mr Maurya expired in the year 2000 and therefore could not be produced as witness. It is argued that secondary evidence of a witness who cannot be produced is relevant under the evidence Act . Ld Defence counsel in this regard has placed reliance on Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra(2000) 6 SCC 671 ( para No 3.4 of written submission filed on behalf of accused ) I have carefully gone through the statement of this witness. In his examination in chief he has stated that he knew accused Sukh Ram since 1985 as he belonged to Mandi Constituency. He was asked by Sukh Ram to supervise construction work. Relevant portion of his examination in chief in this regard is as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 67 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next