Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
M.W.Chandwani
Rahul S/o Kisan Jaybhaye – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Station Officer, Chikhli Police Station Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenging orders on admissibility. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument against demonstration panchanama admissibility. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution asserts admissibility under section 27. (Para 6) |
| 4. details of witness’s testimony on objection. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court analysis of quoted precedents. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. section 27 as an exception to confessions rule. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. historical divergent views on section 27. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. definition of 'fact discovered' under section 27. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. previous decisions affirm concrete discovery. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 10. recent interpretation of discovery under section 27. (Para 19) |
| 11. self-demonstration does not constitute admissible discovery. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 12. court precedent on admissibility of similar evidence. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 13. entire demonstration is inadmissible. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 14. court’s ruling against trial court orders. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT:
M.W. Chandwani, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petition challenges the orders dated 08.10.2024 and 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Trial No.24
Demonstration panchanama is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act as it does not lead to the discovery of physical facts but rather constitutes a confession made in police presenc....
(1) Power of Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India is exercisable even in cases of concurrent findings of fact and such powers are very wide but in criminal appeals Supreme Court d....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
(1) There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person.(2) Appeal against acquittal – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of rea....
(1) Kidnapping, murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Brutality of offence does not dispense with legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Courts can convict accused only if ....
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and all links in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
