Search Results Page

Search Results

31 - 40 of 59 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Surender @ Sonu Punjabi & Ors. on 17 September, 2014

State vs . Sonu on 4 August, 2015

11. In the present case to secure conviction of accused, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence of lurking house trespass by night punishable U/s. 457 IPC. To prove FIR No. 08/2007 State Vs. Sonu page 4 of 5 its case against the accused, prosecution has brought forth the complainant Sarju Prasad and two public witnesses Surender Kaur and Mohd. Alam. While the evidence of complainant Sarju Prasad had remained incomplete, witnesses Surender Kaur and Mohd. Alam had failed to support the case of prosecution. Apart from these three witnesses, PW4 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar has been examined, who is a formal witness and does not aid the version of prosecution. The IO/ASI Bhopal Singh had also failed to appear before the Court to prove the case against the accused. Further, the site plan has not been proved on record. Thus, there is no clinching evidence to convict the accused of the offence charged.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Surender @ Sonu And Ors on 25 April, 2024

2024.04.25 Date : 25.04.2024 16:49:43 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/25.04.2024 Dictated on : 25.04.2024 Digitally signed Transcribed on : 25.04.2024 VIKRAM by VIKRAM Date: 2024.04.25 checked on : 25.04.2024 16:49:51 +0530 Signed on : 25.04.2024 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/25.04.2024 SC No. 268/2019 State Vs. Surender @ Sonu & Ors. Page no. 5 of 5
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3 4   5 6 Next