HTML

Thursday, February 23, 2017

INCOME TAX Exemption Updates... For every Investor For FY:16-17

*INCOME TAX Exemption Updates... For every Investor For FY:16-17)*

Here is a guide to help your Tax Planning.

🔱 80 C:- Max limit
150000/- (Life Insurance Premium, MF , FD , NSC, PPF , Home Loan Principal , etc.)

🔱 80CCD:-50000/- (NPS)

🔱 80CCG:- 25000/- or 50% of your investment which ever is less

🔱 80D:-25000/-
( Mediclaim Policy for self spouse, children)

🔱 30000/- for dependent parents u/s-80D. Medical reimbursement :- 15000/- US 17(2)

🔱 80DDB:- Medical expense occurred on dependent for specified illment

🔱80TTA:- Up to 10000/- for Interest saving bank account

🔱 Gift tax :- Exempted upto 50000/-. Above 50k full amount taxable (FY) from other than Blood relation.. Gift from Blood relation is 100%Exempted...

🔱 Transport allowance :- 19200/- (FY)
C.E.A. :- 2400/- (FY)

🔱 HRA :- as per the calculation

🔱 24(b) :- 200000/- (home loan interest)

🔱 80G :- full amount in few selected organisation. This exemption is 50%

🔱 80GGB :- 100% exemption for political parties

🔱 80EE :- unlimited (interest on education loan)....

🔱 80U :- 75000/- (in case of taking care of a Handicapped depends)..

So Plan Your Financial Year 2016-17 Income Tax Exemption accordingly.

Farad' is an Urdu word which has meaning as 'Memorandum'

I am reading for last days meaning of 'farad' written differently by different lawyers, but really no one coming out with its exact meaning and usage of this word. 'Farad' is an Urdu word which has meaning as 'Memorandum' . Same is used at many places and many type of documents are said as 'Farad' in their respective cases. Like in criminal case Memo of possession is also called as 'farad maqbuzgi' similarly all types of Land papers like survey sheet, utara in bombay, jamanbandi in North india in a broader term are also called 'farad of land'. Therefore it is the use of word 'farad' for a Memo

INCOME TAX Exemption Updates... For every Investor For FY:16-17

*INCOME TAX Exemption Updates... For every Investor For FY:16-17)*

Here is a guide to help your Tax Planning.

🔱 80 C:- Max limit
150000/- (Life Insurance Premium, MF , FD , NSC, PPF , Home Loan Principal , etc.)

🔱 80CCD:-50000/- (NPS)

🔱 80CCG:- 25000/- or 50% of your investment which ever is less

🔱 80D:-25000/-
( Mediclaim Policy for self spouse, children)

🔱 30000/- for dependent parents u/s-80D. Medical reimbursement :- 15000/- US 17(2)

🔱 80DDB:- Medical expense occurred on dependent for specified illment

🔱80TTA:- Up to 10000/- for Interest saving bank account

🔱 Gift tax :- Exempted upto 50000/-. Above 50k full amount taxable (FY) from other than Blood relation.. Gift from Blood relation is 100%Exempted...

🔱 Transport allowance :- 19200/- (FY)
C.E.A. :- 2400/- (FY)

🔱 HRA :- as per the calculation

🔱 24(b) :- 200000/- (home loan interest)

🔱 80G :- full amount in few selected organisation. This exemption is 50%

🔱 80GGB :- 100% exemption for political parties

🔱 80EE :- unlimited (interest on education loan)....

🔱 80U :- 75000/- (in case of taking care of a Handicapped depends)..

So Plan Your Financial Year 2016-17 Income Tax Exemption accordingly.

Farad' is an Urdu word which has meaning as 'Memorandum'

I am reading for last days meaning of 'farad' written differently by different lawyers, but really no one coming out with its exact meaning and usage of this word. 'Farad' is an Urdu word which has meaning as 'Memorandum' . Same is used at many places and many type of documents are said as 'Farad' in their respective cases. Like in criminal case Memo of possession is also called as 'farad maqbuzgi' similarly all types of Land papers like survey sheet, utara in bombay, jamanbandi in North india in a broader term are also called 'farad of land'. Therefore it is the use of word 'farad' for a Memo

Sunday, February 19, 2017

CITATIONS ON NON EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES*

*Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench 9028401027/8380069591*

*SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON NON EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES*

State of U.P. v. Madan  Mohan [(1989) 3 SCC 390])
Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying   declaration , the said  declaration  cannot be acted upon.
Constitution of India,1950 -- Article 136 -- Appeal against acquittal by the High Court -- No reason given for interference -- Supreme Court refused to interfere the order of the High Court in acquitting the accused. -Failure of the prosecution to explain cut injury on the thing of the accused who reached police station with bleeding injury -- No inference could be drawn that the injury was self inflicted.
The doubtful circumstance as stated by the High Court is that the respondent had suffered a cut injury on his thing and he has immediately gone to the police station with bleeding injury which was admited by the Investigating Officer. It is also not disputed that the accused had lodged a complaint giving his own version regarding the incident. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence that the respondent had reached the police station promptly after the incident. No importance was attached to this fact. In this circumstances the High Court was justified in taking the view that the inability of the witnesses to explain the injury to the accused addes to the doubts regarding their claim who have seen the incidence. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is reasonable and upheld.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 -- Section 231 -- Non examination of witnesses of the locality by the Prosecution however, statements of some of the residents was recorded -- No explanation for non examination of such witnesses -- Held: Prosecution version was doubtful -- Benefit of doubt was given to the accused.

STATE OF U.P.VERSUS PUNNI & ORS.
2008 STPL(LE) 39428 SC [AIR 2008 SC 932 = (2008) 11 SCC 153 = JT 2008 (1) SC 164 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 376 = 2008 CRI. L. J. 1028 = 2008 (1) SCR 85 = (2008) 1 Scale 43 = (2009) 1 SCC(Cri) 372]  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Penal Code, 1860, Sections 399 and 402 - Arms Act, 1959,Section 27 - Adverse inference - Non examination of witness - Non examination of Station house officer and investigation officer - Station officer (SO) after getting secret information nabbed dacoits - FIR of the case was also dictated by him - So was the architect of the facts of the case - Non examination of both the witnesses fatal to the prosecution case.

SOWAM KISKU & ORS.  VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 25810JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 60 - Post-mortem report - Evidentiary value - Cause of death - Non- examination of doctor who conducted autopsy - Effect - By examining of doctor appellants could have opportunity to cross -examine him on account of injuries suffered by deceased - Whether the injuries are fatal in nature, deceased died on account of such injuries or the said injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased - Prosecution denied the opportunity by non-examining the doctor - No evidence that the deceased died due to homicidal violence - Prosecution failed to establish cause of death - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed with order of acquittal.
[Paras 7, 8, 9 and 11]

2001 CrLJ 3656 MAD Jerald vs State

Doctor who conducted the Post mortem has not been examined by the prosecution without there being any explanation for the same. It is fatal to the prosecution.

STATE OF HARYANA VERSUSASU RAM
2014 STPL(LE-Crim) 54724 P&H [2014(4) Crimes 193 (P&H)]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 18 - NDPS - Acquittal - Requirement u/s 50 regarding search & seizure not complied - Non examination of independent witness on plea that he had been won over by accused - Trial court rightly taken this aspect as adverse inference as it was highly improbable that a poor person accused could have won over the police witness. Change in quantity of sample and delay in sending it to FSL laboratory - Possibility of tempering could not be ruled out - Acquittal upheld.
(Paras 15 to 17)

(Babu Ram vs. State of Punjab, 2008 AIR(SCW) 1276)

and more particularly paragraph 13 thereof is relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Dhorde for the appellant in support of his argument that non examination of independent witness raises doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case. However, in that case, independent witness was not examined. Overall evidence probabilised defence version. There was injury on the person of accused. There was non explanation of the same. The wife of the accused had sustained grievous injury and it was held that the accused could be said to have apprehended danger to his and his wife's life and therefore infliction of a single injury by accused with cobblers weapon was held to be in exercise of private defence.


(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 32 - Murder - Conviction for, on basis of dying declaration - Legality - Accused allegedly poured kerosene on his deceased wife and she died due to burn injuries - Only evidence brought on record were three dying declarations and two oral dying declarations - However, all three recorded dying declarations were found not reliable - Held, oral dying declaration is weak piece of evidence, hence, accused cannot be convicted solely on basis of oral dying declaration. Conviction was set aside. (Paras 8,9, 10, 11 & 12)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 32 - Dying declaration - Non-examination of scribe - Evidentiary value of - Held, in absence of evidence of person who had scribed dying declaration, contents of said dying declaration have remained to be proved in accordance with law. (Para 9)

WAMAN KADAM VS STATE OF MAH 2011 ALL MR CRI 3334
[Indian] Penal Code,1860,Sections.302 and 452 r.w.S.34--Evidence Act,1872,Section 32--Murder--Appellants allegedly committing murder of deceased by setting him of fire and fleeing away on immediate arrival of wife of deceased at spot--Prosecution not examining wife of deceased before trial Court which affecting credibility of two dying declarations--Deceased though allegedly sustaining 95 % burn injuries giving two dying declarations which were found mirror copies of each other--Medical evidence falsifying thumb impression on both dying declarations--Non-examination of wife of deceased held fatal to the prosecution case--Conviction based on dying declarations in absence of any independent corroboration, held unsustainable.
State Of Mah vs Abdul majid
2001 All.M.R.(Cri) 1327 : 2001 BCI 251 :

Penal Code (1860), S.302 - Evidence Act (1872), Ss.3, 27 - Appreciation of evidence - police witness - Murder - pointing out the blood stained clothes of the accused and recovery of knives - panchas of non-examination of the accused persons on were afraid the prosecution would not be able to depose to the ground - is held, it is not the test was not a valid ground - in such an event, it would be unsafe to accept the testimony of a police witness.
AIR 1971 SC 1586 - followed. (Para 4)…

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS VISHA MOHAR 2001 ALL MR CRI 1441

[Indian] Penal Code, 1860, Section 302--Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 27--Murder--Appreciation of evidence--Recovery of stick and iron rod at the instance of accused--Investigating officer to whom the accused had made disclosures leading to recovery was not examined--His non-examination was fatal to prosecution as it caused prejudice to accused--Further held that since stick was commonly available with agriculturists and it had no blood stains, recovery of same would not constitute an incriminating evidence.   [Para 16]

BALDEV SONI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2012 STPL(LE-Crim) 43368 CHH CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT 2012 CrLJ 282

Indian Evidence Act; 1872 - Section 3 - Police witnesses - Evidentiary value - Witnesses being police officers does not by itself create a doubt about their credit - worthiness if non-examination of Panch witnesses is explained satisfactorily.
(Para 20)

VIJAY LAHU PATIL VS STATE OF MAH 2013 ALL MR CRI 1062

A.  [Indian] Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148,304 Part II and 452 r.w. Section 149--Arms Act,1959,Section 27--Riot and culpable homicide not amounting to murder by unlawful assembly--Appellants allegedly by forming unlawful assembly attacking on victim by sticks, iron bars and  swords resulting in to his death--Discrepancies found in evidence of alleged eye witnesses in respect of injuries and weapons allegedly used in assault in the wake of medical evidence--Non-examination of first informant i.e. brother of victim and the ASI to whom the report is received casting doubt on prosecution case--Mistakes in recording of time in panchanama and its recitals read with wrong referance to surnames of two appellants along with the fact that document not bearing signature of deceased but bearing thumb mark who died soon after incident giving rise to suspicion of making of statement by deceased itself--Conviction and sentence quashed by extending benefit of doubt. [Paras 46,48 and 49]

A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1380 Sohan and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Non-examination of the witnesses mentioned in F.I.R.

A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2423 Ilam Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P

Non-examination of the material witnesses

A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1260 Babu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Non-examination of independent witnesses

A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 854 (Lallu Manjhi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand)

Non-examination of independent witnesses

Gajanan Jiddewar Vs Mah  2016 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 496 :

SEC 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

*Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench 9028401027/8380069591*

*SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON SEC 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT*

Richa Arya Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.2016 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 233 

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), Ss.12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 - Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Interim measure - Refusal to grant on premise that petitioner being granted maintenance pendent lite under divorce proceedings - Held, relief u/S.12 of DV Act is in addition to any other relief - It is not necessary that relief under DV Act can only be sought for in proceeding under DV Act - Same may also be sought for in any legal proceeding even before a civil court and family court apart from criminal court - Therefore, rejection of claim, held, not proper. (Paras 

Amit Rasiklal Shah Vs. Sonal Amit Shah2011(1) ALL MR 765

 Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Interim maintenance - Husband producing income-tax returns - Computation of taxable income must be seen in its entirety and only net income cannot be considered. (Paras 

Smt. Vrinda Bharat Mhapsekar Vs. Shri Bharat Prabhakar Mhapsekar2013(2) ALL MR 271 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Application for enhancement of maintenance - Change of circumstances viz. promotion in service - Fit case for enhancement of maintenance. (Paras 

Sau. Vanita Pravin Gaikwad Vs. Shri. Pravin Pundlik Gaikwad2010 ALL MR (Supp.) 445 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Ss.13, 24 - Civil P.C. (1908), O.8, R.1 - Divorce petition - Grant of litigation expenses - Application filed under S.24 by wife for grant of litigation expenses - Wife cannot be compelled to file a written statement unless an order is passed in favour of the wife directing the petitioner husband to pay litigation expenses - Wife is expected to file written statement only after the amount is paid to her.(Para 

Ritula Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Rajeshwar Singh2010(3) ALL MR 828 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Maintenance to wife - Interim maintenance - Wife having income sufficient to maintain herself - Merely because the husband starts earning additional amount, she cannot be taken not to have income sufficient to maintain herself ipso facto. (Para 

Arvind Chenji Vs. Krishnaveni2010(1) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 33 

 Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Interim maintenance - Grant of, in favour of children, not permissible - Section 24 confers right upon spouses alone, to claim maintenance - Children alone, excluded - Lower Court order granting interim maintenance to two minor children also, held, bad. (Para 

8. It needs to be mentioned that the EP filed by the respondent was under Rule 11 of Order 21, read with Rule 141 of the Civil Rules of Practice. A specific prayer was made for attachment of some items of movable property. Whenever a decree-holder wants the judgment-debtor to be arrested, an application under Rule 37 of Order 21, CPC has to be made. Detailed procedure is prescribed to deal with applications, filed under that provision. The scope of enquiry would be, as to the means, possessed by the judgment-debtor, and his disinclination to pay the decretal amount. Even assuming that the EP filed by the respondent herein can be treated as under Order 21, Rule 37, the Family Court did not bestow its attention to the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the direction issued by the Executing Court, for arrest of the petitioner, is not sustainable in law.

 Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs. Mr. Kamal Pushkar Mehra2009(5) ALL MR 798

 Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Ss.9, 24 - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (1956), S.18 - Grant of maintenance to wife - Challenge to - Decree of restitution of conjugal rights against wife - Held, when the husband has succeeded in obtaining a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, it is implied that wife was required to join the company of the husband at her matrimonial home and therefore, there is no question of maintenance at least from the date of the said order - Order to that extent is required to be set aside - However, Court refused to interfere in the maintenance granted to daughter. 

Smt. Snehal W/O. Sanjay Bapat Vs. Shri. Sanjay S/O. Madhusudan Bapat2009(4) ALL MR 39 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Interim maintenance - Enhancement of - Held, interim maintenance is an order which is meant for providing subsistence during the pendency of proceedings - In these circumstances, enhancement or the reduction in the interim maintenance can be sought by an application, if there is change of circumstances or extra-ordinary long delay in disposal of matter, even though there is no express statutory provision to pass such order. (Para 

Akella Rama Murthy S/O A. Thimmaya Shastry Vs. Akella Sitalaxmi W/O A. Rama Murthy2006(3) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 31 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Maintenance - Claim for children - Right to claim maintenance is conferred only on husband or wife - It is impermissible to grant maintenance to children of the parties - Their remedy is under S.125 of Cr.P.C. and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. (Para 

Smt. Pampa Das Vs.Sanjib Das2005(4) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 65 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Maintenance pendente lite - Application for - Conduct of applicant is immaterial - It is not open to Court to pre-judge the issues and to hold that as the applicant is guilty of matrimonial offences applicant is not entitled to alimony pendent lite and expenses of proceedings.

 Mrs. Rajashree Alias Vanita Rajesh Dixit Vs. Shri. Rajesh Nagesh Dixit2005(4) ALL MR 63

 Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.127 - Civil P.C. (1908), O.47, R.1(1) - Grant of maintenance - Alteration of interim maintenance amount - Provisions of S.24 of Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be given restricted meaning - If in a given case, an application is made for alteration of the interim maintenance amount already granted, such an application will have to be entertained as an application for review under order 47 of R.1(1) of Civil P.C. or in the alternative an application u/s. 127 of Criminal P.C.

Sanjay S/O Pundlikrao Niranjane Vs. Swati W/O Sanjay Niranjane2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2377

 Criminal P.C. (1973), S.125 - Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Maintenance - Grant of - Claim of maintenance by wife u/s.125 of Criminal P.C. - Husband already paying higher amount of maintenance in compliance with the order passed under S.24 of Hindu Marriage Act - Wife not entitled to claim maintenance under S.125 of Criminal P.C. in view of the order passed u/s.24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 372 – Followed

 Vanmala W/O Maroti Hatkar Vs. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar1999(2) ALL MR 504

 

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.24 - Order granting interim alimony and expenses of litigation to wife - Petitioner husband refusing to pay - Wife need not be driven to file execution proceedings - Court can in exercise of inherent powers stay proceedings for divorce for non-compliance with its order.

Mr. Krishnakant Mulashankar Vyas Vs. Mrs. Reena Krishna Vyas And Anr1999(2) ALL MR 103

Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Ss.5(1), 11 and 24 - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (1956), S.18 - Second marriage while first marriage is subsisting - Marriage is void under S.11 read with S.5(1) - Second wife however is not disentitled from claiming maintenance pendente lite under S.24 - She is also not disentitled from claiming interim maintenance under S.18 of 1956 Act.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

CITATIONS ON NON EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES*

*Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench 9028401027/8380069591*

*SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON NON EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES*

State of U.P. v. Madan  Mohan [(1989) 3 SCC 390])
Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying   declaration , the said  declaration  cannot be acted upon.
Constitution of India,1950 -- Article 136 -- Appeal against acquittal by the High Court -- No reason given for interference -- Supreme Court refused to interfere the order of the High Court in acquitting the accused. -Failure of the prosecution to explain cut injury on the thing of the accused who reached police station with bleeding injury -- No inference could be drawn that the injury was self inflicted.
The doubtful circumstance as stated by the High Court is that the respondent had suffered a cut injury on his thing and he has immediately gone to the police station with bleeding injury which was admited by the Investigating Officer. It is also not disputed that the accused had lodged a complaint giving his own version regarding the incident. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence that the respondent had reached the police station promptly after the incident. No importance was attached to this fact. In this circumstances the High Court was justified in taking the view that the inability of the witnesses to explain the injury to the accused addes to the doubts regarding their claim who have seen the incidence. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is reasonable and upheld.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 -- Section 231 -- Non examination of witnesses of the locality by the Prosecution however, statements of some of the residents was recorded -- No explanation for non examination of such witnesses -- Held: Prosecution version was doubtful -- Benefit of doubt was given to the accused.

STATE OF U.P.VERSUS PUNNI & ORS.
2008 STPL(LE) 39428 SC [AIR 2008 SC 932 = (2008) 11 SCC 153 = JT 2008 (1) SC 164 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 376 = 2008 CRI. L. J. 1028 = 2008 (1) SCR 85 = (2008) 1 Scale 43 = (2009) 1 SCC(Cri) 372]  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Penal Code, 1860, Sections 399 and 402 - Arms Act, 1959,Section 27 - Adverse inference - Non examination of witness - Non examination of Station house officer and investigation officer - Station officer (SO) after getting secret information nabbed dacoits - FIR of the case was also dictated by him - So was the architect of the facts of the case - Non examination of both the witnesses fatal to the prosecution case.

SOWAM KISKU & ORS.  VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 25810JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 60 - Post-mortem report - Evidentiary value - Cause of death - Non- examination of doctor who conducted autopsy - Effect - By examining of doctor appellants could have opportunity to cross -examine him on account of injuries suffered by deceased - Whether the injuries are fatal in nature, deceased died on account of such injuries or the said injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased - Prosecution denied the opportunity by non-examining the doctor - No evidence that the deceased died due to homicidal violence - Prosecution failed to establish cause of death - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed with order of acquittal.
[Paras 7, 8, 9 and 11]

2001 CrLJ 3656 MAD Jerald vs State

Doctor who conducted the Post mortem has not been examined by the prosecution without there being any explanation for the same. It is fatal to the prosecution.

STATE OF HARYANA VERSUSASU RAM
2014 STPL(LE-Crim) 54724 P&H [2014(4) Crimes 193 (P&H)]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 18 - NDPS - Acquittal - Requirement u/s 50 regarding search & seizure not complied - Non examination of independent witness on plea that he had been won over by accused - Trial court rightly taken this aspect as adverse inference as it was highly improbable that a poor person accused could have won over the police witness. Change in quantity of sample and delay in sending it to FSL laboratory - Possibility of tempering could not be ruled out - Acquittal upheld.
(Paras 15 to 17)

(Babu Ram vs. State of Punjab, 2008 AIR(SCW) 1276)

and more particularly paragraph 13 thereof is relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Dhorde for the appellant in support of his argument that non examination of independent witness raises doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case. However, in that case, independent witness was not examined. Overall evidence probabilised defence version. There was injury on the person of accused. There was non explanation of the same. The wife of the accused had sustained grievous injury and it was held that the accused could be said to have apprehended danger to his and his wife's life and therefore infliction of a single injury by accused with cobblers weapon was held to be in exercise of private defence.


(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 32 - Murder - Conviction for, on basis of dying declaration - Legality - Accused allegedly poured kerosene on his deceased wife and she died due to burn injuries - Only evidence brought on record were three dying declarations and two oral dying declarations - However, all three recorded dying declarations were found not reliable - Held, oral dying declaration is weak piece of evidence, hence, accused cannot be convicted solely on basis of oral dying declaration. Conviction was set aside. (Paras 8,9, 10, 11 & 12)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 32 - Dying declaration - Non-examination of scribe - Evidentiary value of - Held, in absence of evidence of person who had scribed dying declaration, contents of said dying declaration have remained to be proved in accordance with law. (Para 9)

WAMAN KADAM VS STATE OF MAH 2011 ALL MR CRI 3334
[Indian] Penal Code,1860,Sections.302 and 452 r.w.S.34--Evidence Act,1872,Section 32--Murder--Appellants allegedly committing murder of deceased by setting him of fire and fleeing away on immediate arrival of wife of deceased at spot--Prosecution not examining wife of deceased before trial Court which affecting credibility of two dying declarations--Deceased though allegedly sustaining 95 % burn injuries giving two dying declarations which were found mirror copies of each other--Medical evidence falsifying thumb impression on both dying declarations--Non-examination of wife of deceased held fatal to the prosecution case--Conviction based on dying declarations in absence of any independent corroboration, held unsustainable.
State Of Mah vs Abdul majid
2001 All.M.R.(Cri) 1327 : 2001 BCI 251 :

Penal Code (1860), S.302 - Evidence Act (1872), Ss.3, 27 - Appreciation of evidence - police witness - Murder - pointing out the blood stained clothes of the accused and recovery of knives - panchas of non-examination of the accused persons on were afraid the prosecution would not be able to depose to the ground - is held, it is not the test was not a valid ground - in such an event, it would be unsafe to accept the testimony of a police witness.
AIR 1971 SC 1586 - followed. (Para 4)…

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS VISHA MOHAR 2001 ALL MR CRI 1441

[Indian] Penal Code, 1860, Section 302--Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 27--Murder--Appreciation of evidence--Recovery of stick and iron rod at the instance of accused--Investigating officer to whom the accused had made disclosures leading to recovery was not examined--His non-examination was fatal to prosecution as it caused prejudice to accused--Further held that since stick was commonly available with agriculturists and it had no blood stains, recovery of same would not constitute an incriminating evidence.   [Para 16]

BALDEV SONI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2012 STPL(LE-Crim) 43368 CHH CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT 2012 CrLJ 282

Indian Evidence Act; 1872 - Section 3 - Police witnesses - Evidentiary value - Witnesses being police officers does not by itself create a doubt about their credit - worthiness if non-examination of Panch witnesses is explained satisfactorily.
(Para 20)

VIJAY LAHU PATIL VS STATE OF MAH 2013 ALL MR CRI 1062

A.  [Indian] Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148,304 Part II and 452 r.w. Section 149--Arms Act,1959,Section 27--Riot and culpable homicide not amounting to murder by unlawful assembly--Appellants allegedly by forming unlawful assembly attacking on victim by sticks, iron bars and  swords resulting in to his death--Discrepancies found in evidence of alleged eye witnesses in respect of injuries and weapons allegedly used in assault in the wake of medical evidence--Non-examination of first informant i.e. brother of victim and the ASI to whom the report is received casting doubt on prosecution case--Mistakes in recording of time in panchanama and its recitals read with wrong referance to surnames of two appellants along with the fact that document not bearing signature of deceased but bearing thumb mark who died soon after incident giving rise to suspicion of making of statement by deceased itself--Conviction and sentence quashed by extending benefit of doubt. [Paras 46,48 and 49]

A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1380 Sohan and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Non-examination of the witnesses mentioned in F.I.R.

A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2423 Ilam Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P

Non-examination of the material witnesses

A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1260 Babu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Non-examination of independent witnesses

A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 854 (Lallu Manjhi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand)

Non-examination of independent witnesses

Gajanan Jiddewar Vs Mah  2016 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 496 :