CRPC and TRIAL frequent terms

parties have since purchased peace
parties have settled their disputes
extended exhortation
to be the result of an enmity culminating into hatching of conspiracy
Upon completion of investigation
the gun recovered was tallied with the empty cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence
satisfactorily explained
incriminating circumstances
not sufficient to hold the accused guilty
strong incriminating circumstance was brushed aside by the High Court
There is no justification for blowing such trivial discrepancies to doubt the evidence of PW-1 
The Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments for laying down appropriate rules for the police officers to follow when arresting a person for resorting to handcuffing only in circumstances indicated in the above. 

Merely because the relation between the accused persons and the complainant were strained leading to

groupism in the village, the testimony of eye-witnesses who were fellows of complainant is not to be discarded, though it needs to be scrutinized with caution so as to eliminate the possibility of any false implication.

It is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence should be

excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. In appropriate cases, the Court can rely upon the part of testimony of such witness, if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy.

Brevity of orders on application of mind and not the length of the order is the criterion for adjudication the rights of the parties which are otherwise subject to the decision of a Civil Court. It would be appreciated that the Designated Courts which are otherwise over burdened shall refrain themselves from writing unnecessary lengthy judgments and pass appropriate brief orders, surely dealing with all points, while adjudicating claims of all the parties.

incorporated in the Act or the Rules by the Parliament

Hyper-technical approach, as projected by the defence counsel would defect the ends of justice and have disastrous effect.

Power of perception and memorizing differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also

depends upon capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. But that would depend upon the strength or trustworthiness of the witnesses who have identified the accused in the Court earlier.

In dying declaration story of kerosene in stove got finished and while filling kerosene in stove, clothes of

deceased caught fire is not believable, because absence of kerosene would put off the ignition of stove and therefore, flow of fire would not be available.

The test of discerning whether a statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate u/s 164 of Cri.Pro.Code,  from an accused is confessional or non-confessional is not by dissecting the statement into different sentences and then to pick out some not inculpative. The statement must be read as a whole and then only, the Court should decide whether it contains admissions of his incriminatory involvement in the

offence. If the result of that test is positive then the statement is confessional, otherwise not.

Unless the life imprisonment is commuted or remitted by appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of law applicable in the case, a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law or serve the life term in prison.

The doctor has opined that the death may take place at once and within ten minutes by reason of the extensive nature of the burn and the deceased cannot have survived beyond ten minutes. Therefore, uncorroborated testimony of mother about declaration cannot be accepted.

If already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a  repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such witnesses may not be material.

The power conferred on the Court for perusal of the case diary u/s 172 of Cri. Pro. Code, is not intended

for explaining a contradiction which the defense has winched to the fore through the channel permitted by law.

Statement of prosecution witness recorded by the Court can be prima facie material to enable the Court to decide whether person not arraigned before it, is involved in crime or not.

It would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it.

The twin test of a confession is to ascertain whether it was voluntary and true. Once those tests are found to be positive, the next endeavour is to see whether there is any other reason which stands in the way of acting on it. Even for that, retraction of the confession is not the ground to throw the confession

overboard.

When the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large and many persons would have witnessed the incident, it would be a prudent exercise to insist on at least two reliable witnesses to vouchsafe the identification of an accused as a participant in the rioting.

which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible

It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under Section-27 of the Evidence Act.

if the article is buried in the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances until such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is, until discloses that fact to any other person. Hence, the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not, but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others.

There is no bar in basing conviction on the testimony of solitary witness so long as the said witness is reliable and trustworthy.

the credit of the witness can be impeached by proof of former statement inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

Lapses: Defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused.

Two views: In criminal case, the golden thread running through the web of administration of justice is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to accused should be adopted.

Miscarriage: A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.

F.I.R: There is no requirement of law for mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the FIR, the object of which is only to set the Criminal Law in motion.

Common object: Generally no direct evidence is available regarding the existence of common object which in each case, has to be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances. When a concerted attack is made on the victim by a large number of persons armed with deadly weapons, it is often difficult to determine actual part played by each offender and easy to hold that such persons attacking the victim had the common object for an offence which was known to be likely to be committed in prosecution of such an object.

The scheme of Sec. 173(8) makes it abundantly clear that even after the chargee-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then, there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to investigation. In such cases, there cannot any prejudice to the accused.

A free and voluntary confession is deserving of highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the

highest sense of guilt.

Presumption: Mere statement that requisite procedures and safeguards were not observed or that  statement was recorded under duress or coercion is of no consequence. Presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police officer as of other persons.

with an oblique motive

Discrepancies: Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors to  observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which discrepancies do not corrode, the credibility of a party's case,  material discrepancies do so.

Where participation of accused in incident is proved by unimpeachable evidence, recovery of no

incriminating material from the said accused, cannot alone be a ground for acquittal.

the desirability to have at least two witnesses has been stated to be a matter of prudence.

Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional.

The genesis of the incident commenced with the first accused entering the field of the deceased and uprooting stealthily some of the standing crops and only when he was caught and a tussle ensued and ' hullas' were raised they brought other accused suddenly into the scene. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to attribute any common object or such a thing having activated all of them to join in furtherance of the object either before arrival or during the course of occurrence as such.