Views
3 years ago

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -84-establish any connection between the accused personsand the conspiracy of the attack on Akshardham.Further, it was contended that the courts below hadgrossly erred in placing strong reliance upon theevidence of above prosecution witnesses to hold thatthere was a link or connection between the fidayeensand the accused persons, and that it was on thefailure of the prosecution to establish suchconnection, that they had been subsequently roped in.63. Further, it was contended that even from theconfessional statement of A-6, wherein he had narratedas to how the two fidayeens were brought from Jammu &Kashmir to Gujarat, there was no mention of A-1 to A-5. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establishthe connection between A-6 and A-2, A-4, A-3 and A-5and this important aspect of the matter had not beenconsidered at all by the courts below while recordingthe finding of guilt against the accused persons andthe same cannot be allowed to sustain.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -85-Defence Witnesses to be given same weightage asprosecution witnesses.64. The learned senior counsel also contended that thecourts below should have given same weightage to theevidence of the defence witnesses as that of theprosecution witnesses and in support of thiscontention, he placed reliance upon the cases ofMunshi Prasad v. State of Bihar 32 , I.C.D.S. Ltd. v.Beena Shabeer & Anr. 33 and State of Uttar Pradesh v.Babu Ram 34Suppression of material witness draws an adverseinference against the prosecution.65. It was contended by the learned senior counselthat PW-126 stated that his senior officer D.GVanzara, had orally told him that PW-50 was aware of32 (2002) 1 SCC 35133 (2002) 2 SCC 42634 (2000) 4 SCC 515

Protecting_Children_Cybercrime
Take It - Or Leave It
The_Danish_Military_Justice_System
criminalprosecut00evaniala
Operation Marble
VOLUME XVII
6DryhpDXh
Part A3 – Share Capital
SKILEx INTERNATIONAL
gqEJ5H
1nWLTFT