Dec 31, 2010
Aravinthan case, III (2002) ACC 738
If property in the goods passes to the consignee, only consignee can sue the carrier.
Biman Chatterjee Vs Sanchita Chatterjee, AIR 2004 SC 1699
the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise…. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the Court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code.
Dec 30, 2010
State of Gujarat Vs Patel Ashwinkumar Ranchodbhai, 2008 CriLJ 3662
All the witnesses ie PW 1 to PW 5 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile - We found that this is a case of failure of justice in which the criminal trial is taken very lightly by all concerned.
Crimes in society are real and concrete incident actually occurs. Crimes are not fancy or imagination, which Courts are called upon to decide. Therefore, greater responsibilities are to be shouldered by Courts while dispensation of justice. Prosecuting agency and investigation agency are also important factor in criminal justice system. Each component must do justice to its role in doing justice to aggrieved persons. The crimes are not affecting the individual, but influences the society as a whole and, therefore, the grave crimes are not against individual but against the society. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. This could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.
We are at pain to observe that neither the learned Trial Judge nor the learned APP endeavoured to find out the truth by probing further the case. Instead, as soon as the witnesses, who were eye-witnesses, turned hostile, the Trial Court as well as the learned APP shut the doors towards their pious and prime duty to search for the truth and the trial was closed in extreme hurry. We find that the Investigating Officer, who is named in the charge-sheet, could not be examined by the learned APP nor such vigilance could be shown by the Trial Court to reach at the truth. It is not the law that when eye-witness turns hostile, the Courts should abandon the search for the truth and learned APP should become oblivious to put forward the whole prosecution case and instead of adducing further evidence for search of truth, simply giving purshis in the case to lack the whole case in a cupboard so as to ignore completely the heinous crime like murder committed under the nose of the society. The Investigating Officer could have been examined to throw light on the circumstances of the case and could have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt despite eyewitnesses turned hostile.
True that criminal justice deals with complex human problems and diverse human beings. On account of relations, witnesses may turn hostile and witnesses may resile when search for the truth is vigorously undertaken through instrumentality of criminal law. In trials, therefore, it becomes the duty of the Judge presiding over a criminal trial, to appreciate the evidence from all corners, and if the evidence is not produced, though available, then, the same could be produced. The Courts exist for doing justice to the persons who are affected.
This is a fact that most of the witnesses coming in the Courts despite taking oath, make false statement to suit the interest of the parties. Effective and stern action is required to be taken on such a stand, which may be taken upon the witnesses. The mere existence of penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the Courts stop to take evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence.
It is known and cardinal principle of evidence that even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, the conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff in coming to the conclusion of truth. It also becomes the duty of the Court to take into consideration of relevant evidence available and Courts are empowered to produce on record such evidence if the prosecution failed in their duties to produce such evidence. The conclusion of a criminal trial must be the outcome of cool deliberations and the scanning of the material by the informed mind of the Judge that leads to determination.
A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers arid muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time.
Thus, in a criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case.
Now the maxim "let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing world over and Courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally, suffers by wrong acquittals".
K. Lack of 'robust judging' has stated in Criminal Courts need of the hour is "robust judging'. The trial Judge is the linchpin in every case, and he has also its eyes and ears. He is not merely a recorder of facts but a purveyor of all evidence, oral and circumstantial. It is said by him that a good trial Judge needs to have a 'third ear' i.e. hear and comprehend what is not said.
Crimes in society are real and concrete incident actually occurs. Crimes are not fancy or imagination, which Courts are called upon to decide. Therefore, greater responsibilities are to be shouldered by Courts while dispensation of justice. Prosecuting agency and investigation agency are also important factor in criminal justice system. Each component must do justice to its role in doing justice to aggrieved persons. The crimes are not affecting the individual, but influences the society as a whole and, therefore, the grave crimes are not against individual but against the society. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. This could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.
We are at pain to observe that neither the learned Trial Judge nor the learned APP endeavoured to find out the truth by probing further the case. Instead, as soon as the witnesses, who were eye-witnesses, turned hostile, the Trial Court as well as the learned APP shut the doors towards their pious and prime duty to search for the truth and the trial was closed in extreme hurry. We find that the Investigating Officer, who is named in the charge-sheet, could not be examined by the learned APP nor such vigilance could be shown by the Trial Court to reach at the truth. It is not the law that when eye-witness turns hostile, the Courts should abandon the search for the truth and learned APP should become oblivious to put forward the whole prosecution case and instead of adducing further evidence for search of truth, simply giving purshis in the case to lack the whole case in a cupboard so as to ignore completely the heinous crime like murder committed under the nose of the society. The Investigating Officer could have been examined to throw light on the circumstances of the case and could have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt despite eyewitnesses turned hostile.
True that criminal justice deals with complex human problems and diverse human beings. On account of relations, witnesses may turn hostile and witnesses may resile when search for the truth is vigorously undertaken through instrumentality of criminal law. In trials, therefore, it becomes the duty of the Judge presiding over a criminal trial, to appreciate the evidence from all corners, and if the evidence is not produced, though available, then, the same could be produced. The Courts exist for doing justice to the persons who are affected.
This is a fact that most of the witnesses coming in the Courts despite taking oath, make false statement to suit the interest of the parties. Effective and stern action is required to be taken on such a stand, which may be taken upon the witnesses. The mere existence of penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the Courts stop to take evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence.
It is known and cardinal principle of evidence that even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, the conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff in coming to the conclusion of truth. It also becomes the duty of the Court to take into consideration of relevant evidence available and Courts are empowered to produce on record such evidence if the prosecution failed in their duties to produce such evidence. The conclusion of a criminal trial must be the outcome of cool deliberations and the scanning of the material by the informed mind of the Judge that leads to determination.
A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers arid muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time.
Thus, in a criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case.
Now the maxim "let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing world over and Courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally, suffers by wrong acquittals".
K. Lack of 'robust judging' has stated in Criminal Courts need of the hour is "robust judging'. The trial Judge is the linchpin in every case, and he has also its eyes and ears. He is not merely a recorder of facts but a purveyor of all evidence, oral and circumstantial. It is said by him that a good trial Judge needs to have a 'third ear' i.e. hear and comprehend what is not said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)