SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Guj) 382

J.M.PANCHAL, M.H.KADRI
JAMLA HARSING MEDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.V.DESAI, K.P.RAVAL

J. M. PANCHAL, J.

( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case. further observed :]

( 2 ) THE complaint filed by Radhaben is admitted in evidence at Exh. 12 in the case. Radhaben in her examination-in-chief stated that on way to Cottage Hospital she had gone to Dahod Rural Police Station where she was questioned about the incident and thereafter her thumb-impression was obtained on complaint. The fact that officer incharge of police station who reduced into writing the information given by Radhaben, is not examined by the prosecution as one of the witnesses is not in dispute. Under the circumstances, the question arises as to whether complaint produced by Radhaben can be received in evidence ? A complaint given by a person or information given by a person under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not by itself become evidence automatically. It can go in as evidence only to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the maker of it. It would be admissible in evidence under Sec. 157 of the Cri. Pro. Code. As Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal procedure provides that the information if given orally shall be reduced to writing. provisions of Sec. 91 of the Evidence A



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top