Criminal Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CRL-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Criminal Law
 Search Tips
Criminal Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CRL-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2012-SC-CRL-Sep-10

Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 376 , Section 342 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 161

Statement of Prosecutrix - Comparing Signature or handwriting - Expert Evidence - Role of Court? - Held - The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive - The Court must keep in mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The Court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it - However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the Court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 190

Cognizance of Offences - Appreciation of evidence at this stage - Whether Permissible? - Held - The Magistrate must, in such a case, be satisfied that the complaint, case diary, statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., if any, do not make out any offence - At this stage, the Magistrate performs a judicial function. However, he cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach a conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable, or can be relied upon. Thus, at this stage appreciation of evidence is impermissible - The Magistrate is not competent to weigh the evidence and the balance of probability in the case.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 207 , Section 208 , Section 209

Sessions Offence - Committal Proceedings - Whether Mandatory? - Held - The committal of a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, in a case instituted by the police is mandatory. The Magistrate can determine, whether the facts stated in the report make out an offence triable exclusively, by the Court of Sessions. Once he reaches the conclusion that the facts alleged in the report, make out an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 207 , Section 208 , Section 209

Sessions Offence - Order of Discharge by Magistrate - Whether Proper? - Held - When an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. It is not permissible for him to do so, even after considering the evidence on record, as he has no jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all - He must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else - In fact, Section 207-A in the old Cr.P.C., empowered the Magistrate to exercise such a power. However, in the Cr.P.C. 1973, there is no provision analogous to the said Section 207-A - He was bound under law, to commit the case to the Sessions Court, where such application for discharge would be considered. The order of discharge is therefore, a nullity, being without jurisdiction.

Topic(s)-Statement of Prosecutrix , Comparing Signature or Handwriting - Expert Evidence

Important Decision(s)- When an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused - He must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else.







                                                                          Full Judgement Body is not available


     
@2016 Indian Law
Name
Email ID
Please Wait..