In a case registered on August 2008 by Delhi police and later prosecuted by Delhi Wildlife Department on seizure of one leopard skin, accused was acquitted by trial court and observed that:
The number of contradictions in the testimony of PWs regarding incidental aspects, the nonjoining of the public/independent witness makes the prosecution story doubtful and it does not inspire any confidence.
Prosecution has neither produced nor proved on record any DD entry showing departure of the aforesaid police personals from PS which creates doubt over their presence at the spot.
No identification memo of the case property was prepared or Placed on record.
PW2 was examined in precharge evidence and his further examination in chief was deferred for wants of case property but the case property remained unidentified by him as he was not examined further by the prosecution. In post charge evidence also, case properties were not identified as PW2 opted to adopt his previous statement recorded in precharge evidence which was not complete, as his post charge
evidence.
No identification mark was put on the case properties at the spot before sealing the same. Therefore, chances of tampering of case property can not be ruled out and it can not be said that the case property produced before the court are the same case property which was allegedly recovered from the
possession of the accused.
The number of contradictions in the testimony of PWs regarding incidental aspects, the nonjoining of the public/independent witness makes the prosecution story doubtful and it does not inspire any confidence.
Prosecution has neither produced nor proved on record any DD entry showing departure of the aforesaid police personals from PS which creates doubt over their presence at the spot.
No identification memo of the case property was prepared or Placed on record.
PW2 was examined in precharge evidence and his further examination in chief was deferred for wants of case property but the case property remained unidentified by him as he was not examined further by the prosecution. In post charge evidence also, case properties were not identified as PW2 opted to adopt his previous statement recorded in precharge evidence which was not complete, as his post charge
evidence.
No identification mark was put on the case properties at the spot before sealing the same. Therefore, chances of tampering of case property can not be ruled out and it can not be said that the case property produced before the court are the same case property which was allegedly recovered from the
possession of the accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment