Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sita Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 April, 1975
If those statements were excluded from
consideration there would be no evidence of any demand or
acceptance of bribe by the accused. All that the prosecution
would be left with would be the evidence of the Inspector
and P.W.4 to the effect that the accused took out the
currency notes from the right side pocket of his trousers
and flung them across the wall into the adjoining room. That
evidence according to the learned counsel would not be
sufficient, even if accepted, to draw the presumption under
s. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reliance was
placed upon the decision of this Court in Sita Ram v. The
State of Rajasthan,(1) and Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi
Administration (2).
Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979
If those statements were excluded from
consideration there would be no evidence of any demand or
acceptance of bribe by the accused. All that the prosecution
would be left with would be the evidence of the Inspector
and P.W.4 to the effect that the accused took out the
currency notes from the right side pocket of his trousers
and flung them across the wall into the adjoining room. That
evidence according to the learned counsel would not be
sufficient, even if accepted, to draw the presumption under
s. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reliance was
placed upon the decision of this Court in Sita Ram v. The
State of Rajasthan,(1) and Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi
Administration (2).
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kharaiti Ram vs The State on 28 April, 1971
After excluding irrelevant material we are left with
the evidence of P.W.8 and that of P.W.4 whose evidence
corroborates that of P.W.8 in several material particulars.
We, however, wish to say that the evidence of P.W.8 is
entirely trustworthy and there is no need to seek any
corroboration. We are not prepared to accept the submission
of Shri Frank Anthony that the fact that he is the very
Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us
to insist upon
1060
corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of
prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor
indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the
evidence of such officers should be treated on the same
footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be
insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances
of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon
the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but,
equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the
Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an
officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and
on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can
there be any precedential guidance. We are forced to say
this because of late we have come across several judgments
of Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where
reference is made to decisions of this Court on matters of
appreciation of evidence and decisions of pure question of
fact. While on this subject of appreciation of evidence we
may also refer to an argument of Shri Frank Anthony based on
the observations of a learned single judge in Kharaiti Lal
v. The State,(1) that persons holding clerical posts and the
like should not be called as panch witnesses, as such
witnesses could not really be called independent witnesses
as they would always be under fear of disciplinary action if
they did not support the prosecution case. We do not think
we can accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony. The
respectability and the veracity of a witness is not
necessarily dependent upon his status in life and we are not
prepared to say that Clerks are less truthful and more
amenable than their superior officers.