DR. B.S. CHAUHAN v. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 164, 207, 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ss. 3, 8, 9, 27, 134, 157
Judgment
2.2. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded D under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement, and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. [Para 15] [1193-F-G] E Jogendra Nahak & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2565: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 39; Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2901: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 162; Ram F Charan & Ors. v. The State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 1270: 1958 SCR 354 and Dhanabal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1980 SC 628: 1980 (2) SCR 754 - relied on. G King AIR 1949 PC 257 - Mamand v. Emperor AIR 1946 PC 45; Bhuboni Sahu v. referred to.
3.1. Once a recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group (s) loses significance. [Para 17] [1194-H; 1195-A] H R. SHAJI v. STATE OF KERALA 1177
3.2. No advantage can be conferred upon the A accused to enable him to claim any benefit, and the report of dis-integration of blood etc. cannot be termed as a missing link, on the basis of which the chain of circumstances may be presumed to be broken. [Para 18] [1195-C-D] B Prabhu Babaji Navie v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 51; Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of UP. AIR 1963 SC 74: 1963 SCR 239; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram AIR 1999 SC 1776: 1999 (2) SCR 29; Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan C AIR 2001 SC 330: 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408; John Pandian v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2010) 14 SCC 129 and Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab JT 2012 (8) SC 639 - relied on.
#4. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may D be considered as a circumstance, which is a relevant factor for the purpose of assessing evidence, in the event that there is no unambiguous evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. However, the absence of motive in a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence, is a factor E that weighs in favour of the accused as it "often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story". [Para 19] [1195-E-G]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.