Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)

Fir No. 28/2014 State vs . Sonu Etc Page No.1 Of 36 on 22 September, 2018

12. Statements   of   accused   persons   u/s   313   Cr.P.C   were recorded   wherein   both   the   accused   have   stated   that   they   are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Nem Chand has also stated that  on 12.01.2014 at about 7.30 a.m, he left his home for his labour work. When he reached Swaroop Nagar FIR No. 28/2014 State Vs. Sonu etc Page No.9 of 36 Highway and waiting for the bus, one vehicle stopped near him. 3­4 persons enquired him about his name and address. When he was unable to give his ID, then they forcibly took him in that vehicle and brought to police station. There they asked mobile number of any known. Thereafter, he gave them number of one of his neighbours Sunil who also lived nearby his rented residence. Sunil reached at the PS alongwith his driving licence. Police officials sent him back after taking his driving licence by saying that he will be left after enquiry.   Thereafter,   they   forced   him   to   sign   some   blank   papers. When   he   refused   to   do   the   same,   then   they   gave   him   merciless beatings and forcibly took his signatures on blank papers. He kept on saying that he does not know that auto driver. Further, he does not have any concern with the alleged recovery. Even he did   not make any disclosure statement to the police.   At that time, he was not   using   any   mobile   phone.   The   police   officials   have   falsely implicated him in this false case.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1. Sonu @ Soaib on 24 November, 2022

36. The defence as taken by the accused persons in their respective statement recorded under section 313 of the Code does not inspire confidence and appears to be after thought. The statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code is in conflict with the version in testimony of defence witnesses produced by the accused persons. The SC No. 44/17 State vs. Sonu & Ors FIR No. 814/14 Page No. 19 of 22 defence witnesses have deposed that all the three accused persons were not available at the spot on the day of the incident. But, the brother of complainant Bhanupriya namely Shamsher had caused injury to her with a Tawa. She said defence has been produced by the accused persons for the first time through the testimony of defence witnesses, therefore same is doubtful. Most importantly, the defence as taken by the accused persons was not put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross examination. Moreover, the accused persons have not stated the aforesaid facts as deposed by defence witnesses in their testimony.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 631/2022 State vs Sonu on 29 May, 2023

(1) That the accused has defaced any property by writing or Police Station : Lajpat Nagar Page No. 10 Of 18 FIR No. 631/2022 State Vs Sonu marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. (2) That the said property is situated in a public view. (3) That the writing or marking on the property in a public view was not for indicating the name and address of the owner and occupier of the said property.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cr. Case/432783/2016 on 7 June, 2018

State v. Sonu Page 2 FIR No.227/12, PS Uttam Nagar Sonu also went to Karnal after her. Thereafter, when Heena returned, complainant with his wife started residing at Najafgarh on rent. Thereafter, again Sonu induced Heena to leave the complainant. He made a complaint at PS BHD Nagar but no action was taken. Thereafter, he went back to his house at Mohan Garden alongwith his Children. In the year 2012, in the month of October he had gone to house of Sonu to find out about his wife. But a fight took place there and thereafter, he made complaint in PS Uttam Nagar. Now he was divorced from his wife.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1