Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Pardeep @ Sonu vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 25 March, 2011

Ms. Urvashi Parashar vs State on 23 March, 2017

9. The   Hon'ble   High   Court   in   a   Judgment   reported   as Pardeep @ Sonu Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi,   2011 (2) JCC 1031 has held as under:­ "The   discretion   vested   in   shape   of exception, therefore, has to be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases and such exercise must avoid arbitrariness and must be according to UID No.54383/2016                   Urvashi Parashar Vs State & Another  5 of 9 recognized cannons of criminal justice system. The additional evidence can be permitted   at the instance of the prosecution as well as the defence.  It is a known celebrated principle of law   that   discretion   under   this   section   should not be exercised for the purpose of filling a gap in   the   prosecution   case   when   the   necessary evidence   was   available   to   the   prosecution   at the hearing and ought to have been produced then.     Likewise,   defence   should   not   also   be permitted   to   tender   such   evidence   when   the evidence   in   defence   was   available   to   the defence   at   the   hearing   of   trial   and   ought   to have been produced then".
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Accused on 31 May, 2012

19. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that testimony of mother of prosecutrix is not consistent and rather shaky therefore, it cannot be relied upon and accused is entitled for getting benefit of doubt. He relied on a case Sonu v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2010 (2) C.C.C. (HC) 381 wherein the Delhi High Court acquitted the accused from the charge u/s 376 IPC as the testimony of father of prosecutrix was shaky.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Judgment In The Case Of Sonu vs State (Nct) Of Delhi, on 30 August, 2011

27. Counsel for the accused has produced before me the judgment in the case of Sonu Vs State (NCT) of Delhi, 2010 (2) JCC 1337 in which it was held that it was settled that the age determined through radiological examination is not exact and may vary by two years on either side. Margin of error in such a radiological examination is two years on either side and according to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence benefit of FIR No. : 61/10 Page no. 15 this variation must go to the accused; if such benefit is extended to accused, age of the prosecutrix can be taken above than 16 years.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Judgment In The Case Of Sonu vs State (Nct) Of Delhi, 2010 (2) on 25 July, 2012

12. Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed before me the judgment in the case of Sonu Vs State (NCT) of Delhi, 2010 (2) JCC 1337 in which it was held that it was settled that the age determined through radiological examination is not exact and may vary by two years on either side. Margin of error in such a radiological examination is two years on either side and FIR No. : 508/11 PS Mehrauli 4 according to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence benefit of this variation must go to the accused; if such benefit is extended to accused, age of the prosecutrix can be taken above than 16 years.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs . State, Cited As 2001 Iv Ad (Delhi), on 1 April, 2016

a. Jagmohan v. Commissioner of Police 2007 (1) AD Delhi 117, b. Dinesh Kumar v. State 2006 (132) DLT 465, c. Abhay Nath Dubey v. State of Delhi and others 2002(VI) AD Delhi 528, d. Kuldeep Singh v. State 1994 Cr.L.J. 2502, e. Bishamber Dayal Yadav v. State 2007 (4 JCC) 2584, f. Priya Gupta v. State 2007(5) AD Delhi 707, g. Laxminarayan Gupta v. State 2006(130) DLT 490, h. Sanjeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Police 2002 III AD 92, i. Sonu v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2007 (144) DLT 628, j. Neelu Gupta v. State 2006(2) JCC 864, k. Satish Kumar Goel v. State and others 2000 II AD Delhi 841.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1