Assessment of evidence

While adjudicating a bail matter only tentative assessment (of the evidence) had to be made.

Prima facie accused persons shared their common intention in commission of heinous offense and tried to conceal evidence

If several persons were united with common purpose to do any criminal offense, all those who would assist in completion of their object would be equally guilty

Nothing was available on record to believe that complainant party had falsely implicated accused persons in commission of offence

Charge was framed by Trial Court and case was to be fixed for recording of evidence

Material available connected accused persons with commission of offense which carried capital punishment and they failed to make out their case within purview of S.497(2) of Cr.P.C.

Tentative assessment of evidence was to be made and deeper appreciation was to be avoided

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Only tentative assessment is to be made and no deeper appreciation is permissible.

Appreciation of evidence in appeal against conviction was done strictly and in appeal against acquittal, such rigid method of appreciation of evidence was not applied as there was already findings of acquittal given by the trial court after proper analysis of evidence on record.

While deciding bail petitions only tentative assessment of the material and facts available on record was to be made and deeper appreciation of the same should be avoided.

Standards of assessing evidence in appeal against acquittal were different from the standards of assessing evidence in appeal against conviction

Courts were always slow in exercising jurisdiction in case of appeal against acquittal, unless, it was found that gross injustice had been done

In the present case, acquittal order was neither perverse nor shocking or contrary to the evidence available on record

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Assessment of evidence in appeal against conviction was done strictly and in appeal against acquittal, such rigid method of appreciation of evidence was not to be applied as there was already findings of acquittal by the trial court after proper analysis of evidence on record.

Assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes, kidnapping, rape and house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint

Bail, cancellation of

Case of further inquiry

Assessment of evidence

Principle

Accused were police officials who alleged to have kidnapped minor sisters of complainant and raped one of them while rape was attempted upon the other

Trial Court released accused persons on bail on the ground that there were discrepancies in statements of both the girls which were contradictory to medico legal report

Validity

To decide fate of bail application, tentative assessment of material available on record was to be considered but it did not mean that Trial Court to find out discrepancies of minor nature, while considering ground of further inquiry into the guilt of accused

Offence against which accused were charged was of heinous nature

On tentative assessment of evidence it was not possible to hold that case would fall within the scope of further inquiry

Every hypothetical question which could be imagined would not make it a case of further inquiry, simply for the reason that the same could be determined after evaluation of evidence

No sufficient grounds existed for further inquiry into the guilt of accused with which they were charged

Some contradictions in between ocular and medical evidence were noticed, which could not be considered prior to recording of evidence, moreso with regard to heinous offence which fell within the purview of prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was cancelled, in circumstances.

At bail stage court had to tentatively form its opinion by assessing the evidence available on record without going into merits of the case.

Only tentative assessment of evidence had to be made and deeper appreciation had to be avoided at bail stage.

Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage was neither desirable nor permissible.

At bail stage material available on record was to be sifted in order to establish whether the accused could be connected with the offence in question or not

No detailed inquiry was to be carried out by the court because all such factors would be proved or disproved at trial stage.

Section 497, Cr.P.C. did not contain any restrictions on court's power to assess evidentiary value of material placed before it

Court, however, had to refrain, directly or indirectly, from giving any conclusive finding on question of guilt or innocence of accused.

Evidence at bail stage could not be appreciated deeply and only tentative view was to be taken to find out as to whether accused was connected with the commission of the alleged offence or not.

Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be gone into at bail stage but mere tentative assessment was to be made of F.I.R., statement of prosecution witnesses, nature of offence, role assigned to accused, mashirnama and medical report.

Best course for determination of a bail application was to look into the matter cursorily and assess the same tentatively.

While deciding bail application, only tentative assessment is to be made; it is to be seen whether prima facie existence of reasonable grounds are available against accused for offence falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. or otherwise

Prosecution has to prove reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed crime

Liberty of a person is prince consideration as envisaged by all laws and only S.497(1), Cr.P.C. prohibits release of accused in certain conditions

Such conditions must be proved by prosecution, else every citizen has right of liberty and cannot be put in jail without reasonable grounds.

Trend that eye-witnesses take a somersault and give statements which are different from prosecution case and file affidavits at the stage of hearing of bail application with the intention of creating doubt in the prosecution case to enable accused to get the bail was deprecated by High Court with the observation that courts has to be very careful in such cases and see that bail applications are disposed of strictly according to law on merits keeping in view the distinction between tentative assessment and actual evaluation of evidence by the Trial Court

Mind of the Court has to be satisfied where about-turn of some of the eye-witnesses in such a manner shakes up the whole prosecution case from the point of view of credibility of the remaining material

Each case, in such a situation has to be decided on its own merits.

Deeper appreciation of the material on record cannot be made at bail stage, but only tentative appreciation thereof is to be made just to find out the prima facie connection of accused with the commission of the offence.

Court, while dealing with bail application has to see the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.

Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage in not warranted under the law and only a bird's eye view of the same is to be made.