Monday, 10 August 2020

Whether it is mandatory to prepare and prove spot panchnama in offence U/S 294 of IPC?


 Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code



 [294. Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others—

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.]
As per this section offence should occur in a public place. Hence the prosecution must prove that crime happened in a public place. Therefore it is mandatory for investigating officer to prepare spot panchnama to show that offence occurred in a public place. The prosecution can also prove that incident happened in a public place by adducing other evidence.
Print Page

Sunday, 9 August 2020

Whether confession of accused recorded by officer of Railway Protection force is admissible in evidence?

Whether an Officer of the Railway Protection Force, making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act), in respect of an offence under Section 3 of that Act of unlawful possession of the railway property, is a Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC. 1898; and as such any confession or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act is inadmissible in evidence.

57. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that an officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge-sheet before the Magistrate concerned under Section 173 of the Code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating 'police officer'. Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant's, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above, Inspector Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 208-209 of 1974 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 630 of 1977

Decided On: 31.07.1980

 Balkishan A. Devidayal  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
O. Chinnappa Reddy and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/0112/1980,AIR 1981 SC 379
Print Page

Supreme Court: Presumption U/S 90 of Evidence Act is not applicable for proof of will

 At the same time we cannot accept the submission on behalf of the Respondents as well that merely because the will was more than 30 years old, a presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act' for short) ought to be drawn that the document has been duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and attested. As held by this Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh reported in MANU/SC/8404/2008 : 2009 (3) SCC 687, a presumption regarding documents 30 years old does not apply to a will. A will has to be proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1071 of 2006

Decided On: 03.05.2013

M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. Vs.  K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.L. Gokhale and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.

Citation: (2013) 7 SCC 490, MANU/SC/0462/2013
Print Page

Saturday, 8 August 2020

Whether the public prosecutor can refrain from examining any witness if the witness refuses to give testimony for fear of his life?

We find force in the contention of Shri Uniyal that these witnesses were "won over" by the accused, in the sense that they were not prepared to give evidence in the case for fear of their lives, or otherwise. Keshri and Shanker were not concerned in or prosecuted for the murders of Pitam and Megha. They became victims of the wrath of Shanker appellant simply because they were on friendly terms with Basanta and were looking after the latter's defence when he was being tried for the murder of Megha. Naturally, therefore, Hulasi, Bansi etc. would be mortally afraid of giving evidence in court, and of being caught in this vicious chain of murders. We therefore repel the argument that Hulasi etc. were withheld with an oblique motive.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1974

Decided On: 29.01.1975

Shanker  Vs.  State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.S. Sarkaria and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.

Citation: (1975) 3 SCC 851, AIR 1975 SC 757, MANU/SC/0207/1975
Print Page