Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 30 of 59 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Surender @ Sonu Punjabi & Ors. on 17 September, 2014

State vs . Sunder @ Sonu & Ors. on 22 February, 2016

"It is wrong to suggest that the water from the house of my neighbor Vimla drained into my house and many a times, I made the complaint to Vimla Devi in this regard. It is also wrong to suggest that Vimla Devi did not pay any heed towards my complaint/request and on 12.01.2014, she abused me and called her brothers i.e. accused Sunder and Manwar Singh, who are present in the court today. It is also wrong to suggest that on the arrival of FIR No. 21/14 State vs. Sunder @ Sonu & Ors. 3/8 -4- accused persons they started abusing me and my brother and when I told the accused persons for not abusing us, they started pelting stones upon me and my brother, due to which I sustained injuries on my head and my brother sustained injuries on his leg. At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement/complaint Mark A and witness denied having made such statement before the police. However, he admits the signature at point A. It is also wrong to suggest that accused persons were arrested in my presence. At this stage, witness is confronted with his supplementary statement dated 13.01.2014, Mark B and witness denied having made such statement before the police. Witness is also confronted with the disclosure statement, arrest memos and personal search memos, Mark C to H and witness admits his signature at point A on the same, however, he denied the contents of the above said documents. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to save the skin of accused persons as I have been won over by them".
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sonu on 12 April, 2022

"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts State Vs. Sonu; CIS No. 5723/2021; FIR No. 108/21; PS Kashmere Gate; U/s. 392/411/34 IPC 8/9 Digitally signed KAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.04.12 17:15:26 +0530 CNR no. DLCT020106412021 upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution ..........................."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No 128/14 State vs Sonu 1 Of 8 on 30 October, 2014

SC NO 128/14 STATE vs SONU 1 of 8 In his statement, the complainant reported that on 09.03.2013, at about 10 PM, he hired an auto­rickshaw bearing registration no. DL 1 RK 9062 and was going towards Nizamuddin Railway Station. When the auto­ rickshaw reached ahead of Neela gumbad near East Nizamuddin Petrol Pump, Mathura Road, Nizamuddin, at about 10.20 PM all of a sudden two persons came on a motorcycle, which was without number plate, waylaid them. The driver of the motorcycle was putting on the helmet whereas the pillion rider was without helmet. The pillion rider showed the pistol inserted into his dub to the complainant and threatened him to handover whatever he was carrying otherwise he would be killed. The complainant out of fear handed over Rs. 15,000/­, one gold ring and one silver ring to them. Thereafter both the accused persons fled from the spot. On this complaint the FIR in the present case was registered. The IO also got prepared one portrait of the accused at the instance of the complainant in State Crime Record Bureau and send it to all the police stations. Subsequently two accused persons namely Sonu and Gopal Singh were arrested in case FIR No 96/13 u/S 379/356/34 IPC PS Amar Colony in which they disclosed about their involvement in the present case and accordingly the present case was worked out and the accused were arrested. However, no recovery could be effected from the accused Gopal Singh, there was no incriminating evidence against him and hence he was discharged by the Ld. MM vide Order dated 22.03.2013. The accused Sonu however, refused to participate in the TIP proceedings before the Ld. MM and he also got recovered Rs. 6,700/­ from his house at Begampur, New Delhi. He disclosed that he along with one Surender Yadav on his motorcycle robbed the said amount from a auto on Mathura Road near petrol pump about 10­12 days back.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cr. Case/69859/2016 on 18 October, 2018

5. The star witness of the case is the complainant himself namely Pramod Kumar Mandal who was examined as PW1 and he has stated that he has taken a rickshaw on rent and the incident pertains to the year 2011 when he had parked his rickshaw in front of the Bank of India, Budhela Market, Vikas Puri after locking the same and he went inside the market for some shopping and when he came back after ten minutes, he saw that one person was trying to break open the lock of the rickshaw and when he made noise, the said person tried to run away but one police constable apprehended the said person. The witness did not identify the accused during his examination in chief but later on during the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness identified the accused as the person who had tried to steal his rickshaw. The witness stated that he had apprehended the accused with the help of the other public persons and handed over the accused to the police who came on the spot. There are certain discrepencies found in the testimony of the witness who did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the date and certain other facts of the incident but had supported the case to the extent by identifying the accused before the Court. The discrepancies can be ignored if there are other material witnesses to support the case of the prosecution and who corroborate the testimony of the complainant who FIR No. 316/11 State v. Sonu 3 of 7 PS Vikas Puri has not supported the case of the prosecution upto an extent. The accused cannot be allowed to take the benefit of those discrepancies when the place of incident, the identity of the accused and the case property is estblished through the witness who has turned hostile with regard to the certain facts of the case. The witness has also identified the photographs of the cycle rickshaw on which the attempt was made for theft. It has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to corroborate the testimony of the witness with regard to the material point that accused was the person who has tried to commit the theft of cycle rickshaw on the date of incident. It is quite possible that witness was unable to remember the date or the exact particulars of the rickshaw or his date of birth on account of his illiteracy which has come during his cross examination and these are just minor discrepancies which cannot throw away the case of the prosecution.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sonu on 2 April, 2019

PW4 Ct. Anil Kumar Meena deposed that on 06.11.2015, he was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm, when the complainant came at the PS and gave written complaint to SI Harender and the same was handed over to the witness. He further stated that he further handed over the complaint to the DO for registration of FIR in the present case and after getting the FIR lodged, the DO handed over the copy of FIR to the witness and the complaint with rukka. He further stated that he FIR No .844/15, State vs. Sonu 5 went to the spot and handed over the same to the IO, IO prepared site plan, searched for the accused and case property but could not find anything and stated that the IO recorded his statement and then relieved the witness. He further stated that the spot was Krishna Market Lucknow road near Gurudwara and the name of the complainant was Jyotsna.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sonu & Anr. on 28 April, 2017

6. The PW­1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri was declared hostile  by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. The cross­examination of PW­1 was conducted at length by   Learned Additional Public Prosecutor   for   the   State.   The   relevant   portion   of   his   cross­ examination is reproduced as under : ­   "   I do not remember if the incident took place on  04.04.2005. It is   wrong   to   suggest   that   on     the   day   of   incident   at   about 12.30/01.00 pm, I was sitting in front of B­58, Rama Road and in the meanwhile, the accused Mannu Lal and Sonu who are present in court today, came there.  It is also wrong to suggest FIR no. 293/2015                                State Vs Sonu & anr.                               3 of 6 that Monu was having an iron rod and Sonu lifted a stone from the road and hit the same on   my head.   It is also wrong to suggest   that   accused   Monu  grabbed   me   when   I   was   hit  with stone. "
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3   4 5 6 Next