- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-
In the case of ‘State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Ors.’, (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Supreme
Court held:
“The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage
being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted.
His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is
unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely
implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has
its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his
testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the
testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in
law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant
go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the
commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein.”- In the case of ‘Abdul Sayed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh’, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Supreme Court held :
“ The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of
a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence
has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness
to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very
reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee
of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare
his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
“Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra (2013)6 SCC 770 it is emphasized that victim is not to be forgotten in criminal justice system and Section 357 Cr.P.C. should be read as imposing
mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation in every case. -
HOSTILE WITNESS
Hon’ble Supreme Court-Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryans, (1976) 2 SCR 921 : Air 1976 SC 202;
Rabinder Kumar Dev v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233:
AIR 1977 SC 170 and Sayed Akbar v. State of Karnataka,
(1980) 1 SCR 95: AIR 1979 SC 1848 – Where it was held that
the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto
merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and
cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be
treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the
same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be
dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.Hon’ble Apex Court and it was observed that law is not well settled that merely because witness is declared as hostile witness, whole of his evidence is not liable to be thrown away. Reference was made to Syed Akbar Vs. State of Karnatka, 1980 (1) SCC 30, Rabindera Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, 1976 (4) SCC 233 and Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1976 (1) SCC 389
-
CRPC – Sec 313
Supreme Court in case ‘S.Govindaraju vs. State of Karnataka’, 2013(10) SCALE 454, are relevant to note :-
“23. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being
examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, to
furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating
circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take
note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence
in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is
complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to
circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or
gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may
be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain
of circumstances.This Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana : JT 2013 (8) SC 181 held as under:
Undoubtedly, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. However, in certain circumstances, the
accused has to furnish some explanation to the incriminating
circumstances, which has come in evidence, put to him. A
false explanation may be counted as providing a missing
link for completing a chain of circumstances.
-
Soon before-
In ‘Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State’, AIR 2003 SC 2865, Supreme Court observed :-
“…..The expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where Section
113-B of the Evidence Act and 304-B IPC are pressed into
service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the
occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that
case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led
by prosecution. ‘Soon before’ is a relative term and it would
depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket
formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period
of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate
any fixed period of soon before the occurrence. Suffice, however,
to indicate that the expression ‘soon before’ would normally
imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned
cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be
existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of
cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If
alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale
enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned,
it would be of no consequence.”
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.