MANISH DIXIT AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 18-10-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANISH DIXIT AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
OCTOBER I 8, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 34-"Books of accounts "-Meaning of-Hotels register-
C Entries in-Evidentiary value of-Held: Unless a hotel register contains any 
statement of account it cannot be treated as a book of accounts-Even if it 
were so an entry therein cannot be the basis to charge a person with liability. 
Section 137-Re-examination-By Public Prosecutor-Duties of-
D Statement of witness-Contradictions or inconsistencies in-Clarification 
of-Held: Public Prosecutor should put such questions in re-examination as 
to enable a witness to explain the incongruities. 
Section 165-Court's power to put questions-Held: is unlimited-No 
party is entitled to object to such questions-Court has a duty to pi1t such 
E questions to a witness to enable him to explain inconsistent or contradictory 
statements. 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 165-Search-;--By police officer-Independent person-
Reluctance to become a witness-Held: Normally a person is reluctant to 
witness a search and seizure operation especially in a city-Hence, statement 
of police officer that nobody is willing to stand as witness cannot be spurned 
down as improbable. 
Section 166-Search-By police officer-Outside the limits of his own 
G police station-Permissibility of-Held: When there is delay in requisitioning 
the services of the local police station and such delay may defeat the purpose 
of the search, the Investigating Officer may conduct the search himself at that 
other place-However, such IO should comply with the requirements of 
S.166(4). 
H 
Criminal Trial: 
74 
.... 
MANISH DIXIT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
75 
Eyewitness-Solitary eyewitness-Foreign national-left the country A 
before trial started-Sensational case transformed to one of circumstantial 
evidence alone-Held : Undertaking should have been obtained from foreign 
national to return to the country to give evidence-Lack of alacrity shown 
...,...,.. 
by the State agency in a sensational case deserves reprobation. 
Absconding of accused-Effect of-Held: Asbsconding by itself has no B 
decisive implication-However, it has utility to form a link to concatenate 
the full chain. 
Bloodstain-Recovery of-From the scene of crime-Evidentiary value 
of-Held: Is not decisive enough to point to the involvement of accused in C 
the crime-However, if there are other circumstances, such bloodstain may 
lead to an inference against the accused-Evidence act. 
Strictures : 
Judicial strictures-Basic requirements-Principle of Natural justice- D 
Observance of-Held: Person concerned should be given the opportunity of 
being heard in the matter-Otherwise the adverse remarks would be in 
violation of the principles of natural justice-On facts, adverse remarks 
expunged as no such opportunity was given to the person concerned 
Words and Phrases : 
"Books of accounts "-Meaning of-In the context of S. 34 of the 
Evidence Act, I 872. 
E 
The appellant-accused (A2) was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal 
Code, 1860 and the appellant-accused (Al) was convicted under Section 411 F 
IPC. The trial court had made certain adverse observations against PW-30. 
The conviction and the adverse observations were confirmed by the High Court. 
Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution the accused persons in a gypsy abducted G 
a jeweller after dragging out his friend (a German National) who was travelling 
with him. Subsequently the jeweller was found lying dead on a road side and 
A2 had absconded from the scene of crime. Later on the local police arrested 
A2 with a revolver from a place, which was outside the limits of the local police 
station. A bloodstain, which was found to be of the same blood group as that of 
the deceased, was recovered from the motorcycle belonging to Al. The German H 
76 
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A National was cited as the solitary eyewitness, but he was not examined since 
he had left the country before the trial started. 
It was the further case of the prosecution that A2 had stayed in a hotel 
on the next day of the murder and had written a different name in the hotel 
register. PW-30 had conducted the test identification of the jewelleries 
B recovered from the accused person. In cross-examination PW-30 had answered 
that he might have correctly recorded the details of the jewelleries in the 
memo of seizure or he was not able to recollect. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.