Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 364 , Section 302 , Section 307 , Section 120-B
Kidnapping - Murder - As regards appellant 'D' all that the prosecution has produced is the record of telephonic conversations - No doubt that there have been communications with other three accused and the number from Canada but such communications are from a landline number which stands in the name of the brother of 'D' - There is no evidence on record that the said landline number was under the exclusive control of 'D' - Given the fact that his daughter is married with the son of 'S' from Canada, the conversations with the number in Canada are explainable - It is true that suspicion against 'D' was expressly stated in the first statement of PW-15 itself - However, apart from telephonic conversations nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution - Benefit of doubt liable to be given to 'D' he liable to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 364 , Section 302 , Section 307 , Section 120-B
Kidnapping - Murder - Criminal Trial - Plea of estoppel - Res judicata - Plea on behalf of the appellant 'J' that the subsequent judgment will operate as issue estoppel held to be not correct - First and foremost the offences are different and distinct - Rule regarding issue estoppel relates to admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings which is designed to up-set a finding of fact recorded on the previous occasion and mandates that the finding so rendered on earlier occasion must operate as issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings - It makes it impermissible to lead any such evidence at a subsequent stage or occasion - Attempt on part of Counsel is just the opposite - He seeks to rely on the finding at a subsequent stage to up-set a finding of fact recorded on a previous occasion.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9
Test Identification Parade - Non-conducting of - Identification First Time in Court - Held that if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, the mere fact that no test identification parade was conducted would not be a reason to discard the evidence of the witness.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9
Test Identification Parade - Refusal by accused to participate - Adverse inference - Prosecution had made the witness available for test identification but the concerned accused had refused to participate in the test - Though there was no reason for such refusal and adverse inference could be drawn against the accused.
Topic(s)-