Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A prosecution witness, who was examined already, cannot be recalled by exercising the powers under Section 233 CrPC. However, such an exercise can be done under Section 311 CrPC at any stage, including that of Section 233, provided all the requirements and parameters of Section 311 are otherwise satisfied.”
“It is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth. It is not open to the trial Court to throw out the entire prosecution evidence just because it was contradictory on certain aspects of the case.”
The High Court refused to interfere with the sentence imposed on convicts, even after noting inherent contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and placed major credence on the inconsistent statements of injure and her husband, to establish the liability.
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, until and unless the evidence has not been properly appreciated, material aspects have been ignored and the findings are perverse.
Supreme Court permitted the appellant to examine the prosecution witness as defense witness and kept it open for the prosecution to cross-examine the said witness.
Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for the trial court to adhere to legal procedures and directed to proceed with the trial from the date preceding the date of the order under revision.
Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J., while putting petitioners to terms, allowed their application filed under Section 311 CrPC to recall three
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Surinder Gupta, J. dismissed an appeal filed against order of the