Case Details

Citation(s)
1957 SLG 12 1957 SLD 12 1957 PLD 1
Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1955, decision Dated: 04-11-1955, from Criminal Appeals Nos. 562 and 563 of 1954, Dated 30-12-1954.
BHAGWATI, JUSTICE VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JUSTICE SINHA, JUSTICE
Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate (Naunit Lal, Advocate with him) for Appellants. Gopal Singh and P. G. Gokhale Advocates for
Respondent.

PRITAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

VS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 136

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342,367,403

(a) Constitution of India----- ---Article 136 (Constitution of Pakistan, Article 160) Appreciation of evidence by lower Court -Supreme Court in appeal on special leave not to interfere lightly with. Where the witnesses on a certain point are, after due con¬sideration of the circumstances and the criticism levelled against their evidence, believed by both the Courts below, it is not for the Supreme Court to re weigh or re appreciate their evidence and come to a contrary conclusion. Hearing the appeal on special leave, the Supreme Court will not lightly interfere with the appreciation of the evidence by the Lower Courts, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)---------Ss. 45 and 9 Track evidence¬ Value of. The science of identification of foot prints is no doubt a rudimentary science and much reliance cannot be placed on the result of such identification. The track evidence, however, can be relied upon as a circumstance which along with other circumstances, would point to the identity of the culprit though by itself it would not be enough to carry conviction in the minds of the Court. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----- ----Ss. 342 and 367 ¬Criminal trial Examination of accused Whether views or observations of a trying Magistrate can take place of evidence. A Magistrate is certainly not entitled to allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence because such view or observation of his cannot be tested by cross examination and the accused would certainly not be in a position to furnish any explanation in regard to the same. In the absence of such test having been applied and an explanation sought from the accused in regard to the same under section 342, it is not open to the Judge to incorporate these observations of his in the and base his conclusion on the same. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------------S. 403 Res judicata in Criminal trial Acquittal of accused by a competent Court after lawful trial Verdict binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings. The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a com¬petent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492