Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Randhir Singh @ Budha And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 February, 2023
2021 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 527 as
well as the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR-952-2022,
titled as Randhir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on
27.02.2023.
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014
10. The order under challange shall have to be tested on the touch
stone of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep
Singh's case (supra). The complainant had named eight persons in his
statement including the present petitioners. He had stated that the blow on
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 18-04-2023 23:28:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050811
CRR-3240-2019 (O&M) 6 2023:PHHC:050811
his head with an iron rod was given by petitioner Sombir. In the final report,
the petitioners were excluded by saying that their involvement in the incident
was not there and that Sombir was not present at the spot. No other details
were given. After the framing of charges, the complainant appeared as a
witness and reiterated his version and named all eight persons again. This
time also he stated that the injuries on his head had been given by Sombir.
The fact of accused Pardeep having suffered a disclosure statement that it was
he who had given the blow on the head of complainant with an iron rod is not
relevant for the time being because these things will be decided at the stage of
trial.
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
12. The question regarding the weight to be attached to the evidence
of an injured witness was examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mukesh and another vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others 2017 AIR (SC)
2161. After examining the law on the subject, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
This is as a consequnce of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt
guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness
will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a
third party for the commission of the offence. It was held that the deposition
of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds
for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 18-04-2023 23:28:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050811
CRR-3240-2019 (O&M) 7 2023:PHHC:050811
discrepancies therein. While arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:-
Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P on 14 September, 2010
"31. We may merely refer to Abdul Sayeed v. State of
M.P.(2010)10 SCC 259 where this Court held as under:
Jarnail Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2009
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab(2009) 9 SCC 719 where
this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to
the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier
judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29)
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa And Others vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 1994
In Shivalingappa
Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp (3)
SCC 235 this Court has held that the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis
of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason
that his presence on the scene stands established in case
it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said
incident.
State Of U.P vs Kishan Chand & Ors on 20 August, 2004
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand(2004) 7 SCC
629 a similar view has been reiterated observing that
the testimony of a stamped witness has its own
relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence,
lends support to his testimony that he was present
during the occurrence.
Mani Pushpak Joshi vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 17 October, 2019
In support of their contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mani Pushpak Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
2019 (4) Law Herald (SC) 2961, Inderdev Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. State
(GNCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2019 (4) Law Herald (SC) 3072 and Ramesh
Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal)