JEYAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Criminal Justice System does not admit of 'pigeon -holding.' Life and the Law do not fall neatly into slots. When a Court starts laying down rules enumerated (1), (2), (3), (4) or (a), (b), (c), (d), it is arranging for itself traps and pitfalls. Categories, classifications and compartments, which statute does not mention, all tend to make law 'less flexible, less sensible and less just.' " So said, the Supreme Court in Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh, reported in : AIR 1981 SC 1415.

(2.) WHEN the Trial Court has adopted the approach of pigeonholing in interpreting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and while acting upon the evidence of the prosecutrix exclusively, during which the material evidence were omitted to be considered, and immaterial evidence came to be considered resulting in miscarriage of justice, whether this Court should interfere in revision is the issue involved.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution in brief: