on criminal trial

giri (Querist) 01 March 2010 This query is : Resolved
prosecution cannot produce complain during the trial it is a fatal for prosecution. answer is no. please give me favourable citation on above subject.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 01 March 2010
I think word "complain" used in quarry is incomplete. Whether you want it to write complaint or complainant?

Both shall be brought during the trial otherwise trial is fatal.

giri (Querist) 01 March 2010
Respected Sir,
Thanks a Lot and Happy Holly

giri (Querist) 01 March 2010
Dear Sir,

Please Give Me One Ans.

Prosecution cannot examine Investigation officer it is a Fatal for prosecution?, and than Ans is No. please give me favourable Judgement for above subject.

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (Expert) 01 March 2010
It is necessary to examine the investigation officer in a criminal case. If not examined then it is fatal. No citation is required for this.

Guest (Expert) 01 March 2010
Accused is entitled to know from the investigating officer what witnesses have stated before him and whether the witnessesexamined in the court were examined by him or not.
The non-examination of invesgating officer is a serious ommission on the part of prosecution.
pls see.....
HANUMAN vs. STATE OF HARIYANA
(AIR 1977 SC 1614, 1977 SCC (Cr)367 )

BUT IN ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT.....
AJIT KUMAR VASANTLAL ZAVERI vs. STATE OF GUJRAT.( AIR 1992 SC 2064)
SC speaks that Non examination of investigating officer is a defect which may be cured by producing another officer who was with him but normally its fatal to the prosecution case.

AFTER THREE YEARS IN ANOTHER CASE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD IN THE CASE OF......

RAM DEV vs. STATE OF U.P. (1995 SCC (Cr) 402)

THAT, non examination of investigating officer does nor affect credibilty of eye witnesses-- However, it is desirable for the prosecution to produce him even ifdocuments to be proved by himare accepted by the defenceas genuine documents.

but in the case of...
AMBIKA PRASAD vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
AIR 2000 SC 718
Hon'ble apex court held thatIt's unfortunate that Investigating Officer has not stepped into the witness box without any justifiable ground. But this conduct of the I.O. cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of theinjured eye-witnesses, whose presence on the spotis established beyond reasonable doubt.
At the but not the least... Supreme Court further held in a another important case.......
RAM GULAM CHOWDHARY vs. STATE OF BIHAR
(AIR 2000 SC 2842}
That, non examination of an I.O. was of no consequence when it could not be shown as to what prejudice had been caused to the appellant by such non-examination.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries