Sarjan Singh @ Ramakant Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar

Excerpt: Because of the fact that there happens to be inconsistency amongst written report as well as his deposition (examination-in-chief), on account thereof, he was directly confronted with a question that which of two is correct. After keeping silence for a considerable time, lastly, the witness said that whatsoever stated by him in the court, …

Defence witnesses have to be given the same importance as prosecution

Excerpt: It is trite that witnesses produced by the defence have to be given the same importance as the evidence led by the prosecution. There is no explanation given in the impugned judgment as to why the defence witnesses deserve to be disbelieved. We find that the witnesses have corroborated each other and supported the …

Chief examination done without legal representation is void

Excerpt: During chief examination of the witness, prosecution always tend to load its evidence with leading questions. There may be possibility of even adducing hearsay evidence, introduction of irrelevant and inadmissible documents. A trial Judge cannot be either on the side of the prosecution or on the side of the defence. He is a neutral. …

In case of inconsistency S.37 of NDPS Act and S.439 of CrPC S.37 prevails.

Supreme Court of India Narcotics Control Bureau vs Krishan Lal And Others on 29 January, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 558, 1991 SCR (1) 139 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. RESPONDENT: KRISHAN LAL AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1991 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) REDDY, K. …