সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Witness-Examined by police after 20 days of the occurrence-Effect.-
Supreme Court observed that the only serious comment made against this witness was that he was examined by the police 20 days after the occurrence. This is undoubtedly a matter which has to be taken into consideration. The Sessions Judge has considered this defect and has found that this lapse on the part the police would not be sufficient ground to reject the testimony of the witness. As Amrik Singh was not an eye witness to the main occurrence, the investigating officer may have rightly or wrongly thought that he would record the evidence of Amrik Singh after collecting all other material evidence in the case and that may explain the delay in the examination of this witness by the police.
Narpat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1066: 1977 SC Cri R 323: 1977 Cri LJ 642: 1977 Pun LJ (Cri) 116.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
