Skip to content


State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vyas Tewari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 21 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC635; 1981CriLJ38; 1980Supp(1)SCC433; 1981(13)LC168(SC)
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 162
AppellantState of Uttar Pradesh
RespondentVyas Tewari
Cases ReferredBalkishan A. Davidayal v. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal Nos.
Excerpt:
- indian evidence act, 1872 sections 3 & 45: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] ocular vis--vis medical evidence murder case -eye-witnesses evidence found to be credible and trust worthy - medical evidence pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. section 3 evidence of witnesses -reasonable doubts held, doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. indian penal code, 1890 section 300: murder proof - appellants allegedly fired at deceased - eye-witnesses evidence was found to be reliable and trustworthy and there was no conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence-held, conviction of appellants is proper. .....crl. appeal nos. 208 and 209 of 1974 decided on july 31, 1980. now, it is settled law that an officer of the railway protection force making an inquiry under section 8(1) of the railway property (unlawful possession) act, 1966 is not a police officer conducting an investigation under the criminal procedure code. this being the true postition the ban under section 162, crl. procedure code against the evidential use of statements, including the prohibition against signing of statements recorded in the course of police investigation, is not attracted to statements recorded by an officer of the force maxing an inquiry under section 8(1) of the act.2. on this short ground, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the high court and send the case back to it with the direction that.....
Judgment:

R.S. Sakaria and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.

1. We have heard Mr. Bhat, learned Counsel for the appellant State. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. The impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 12-3-73, follows an earlier decision of that Court in Durga Prasad v. State (1971) A.W.R. (H.C.) 17 That decision was reversed by this Court as per its judgment reported in 1976 (1) S.C.R. 881 The matter was again thrashed out by this Court in Balkishan A. Davidayal v. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal Nos. 208 and 209 of 1974 decided on July 31, 1980. Now, it is settled law that an officer of the Railway Protection Force making an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a police officer conducting an investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the true postition the ban under Section 162, Crl. Procedure Code against the evidential use of statements, including the prohibition against signing of statements recorded in the course of police investigation, is not attracted to statements recorded by an officer of the Force maxing an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Act.

2. On this short ground, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and send the case back to it with the direction that it should restore Crl. Revision No. 12 of 1971 to its original number and redecide the matter afresh after hearing the parties, in the light of the above observations and the law laid down by this Court in : 1974CriLJ1465 and in Crl. Appeals 208 & 209 of 1974 decided on July 31, 1980. The High Court shall, issue notice to the respondent, again, who have been proceeded against ex-parte in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //