State vs Neeraj -:: Page 1 Of 38 ::- on 29 November, 2014
State versus Neeraj -:: Page 38 of 38 ::-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1087 (2.78 seconds)Documents citing
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
State vs . Neeraj Etc. on 24 December, 2011
He admitted that the said
statement is neither placed on the judicial file nor on the police file.
He further admitted that no mention is there either in rukka or in the
case diary about any such statement. He denied that no such
statement was recorded or that Priya did not tell him that she had
herself burnt her. During crossexamination on behalf accused, he
stated that public persons gathered at the spot of incident but they
S.C.No. 27/10 Page 11 of 36 pages
State Vs. Neeraj etc.
12
left without giving their names and addresses. One neighbour told
that Priya had set herself on fire but on being requested to give the
statement, the witnesses left the spot and the neighbour residing in
front to the house of Priya, closed the door of her house. The parents
of the victim and her uncle were present in the hospital. Accused
Neeraj was also in the hospital. PW17 reached the hospital at about
9.30 a.m. Parents of victim were talking to her. Priya told that she had
a quarrel with her husband on account of recharge of her mobile and
she was insisting to go to her parental home and therefore burnt
herself. The statement of Priya written by PW17 was handed over to
SHO Inspector Shiv Dayal on 30.04.2010 at the time of handing over
of the file. Kerosene oil was not scattered in the bed room, although
the smell was coming. The kerosene oil was scattered on the floor of
the bath room. The chance prints were not lifted from the can and
steel glass. He denied the suggestion that accused have been falsely
implicated in this case or that SDM had not recorded any statement
of victim.
Fir No. 658/13 5 State vs . Neeraj & Ors. 1 Of 31 on 17 July, 2017
6.1.4. PW1 has admitted that he did not hand over his shirt having
blood stains to the police. It is further deposed that his mother and
uncle Laxmi Chand Gupta removed him to hospital. Firstly he was
taken to private hospital at Karawal Nagar Chowk and thereafter to
GTB hospital. It is further deposed that they reached GTB hospital at
about 12:00 midnight. It is further deposed that police met him in
GTB hospital during treatment, but his statement Ex.PW1/A was
recorded by the police at PS on the same night when he reached
PS after discharge from GTB hospital. Police recorded statement of
his cousin Anil Sharma @ Vicky in his presence. It is denied that a
quarrel had taken place between him and his cousin Anil @ Vicky
FIR No. 658/13 5 State Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 6 of 31
from one side and both the accused persons and their associates
from another side when they were consuming liquor while sitting on
the slab of house of his maternal uncle at the time of incident. It is
denied that police did not meet him in GTB Hospital at any point of
time. It is voluntarily deposed that police met him when doctor was
applying stitches on his head injury. It is further deposed that
accused Yogesh caused injuries on his head by hitting butt / handle
of pistol and accused Neeraj aimed pistol on his forehead and gave
fist blows on his chest. It is further deposed that on the day of
incident, he had Rs. 6,600/- with him to give to his maternal
grandmother who was ill. It is denied that he used to play gamble
with his cousin and others while sitting on the slab of the house of
his maternal uncle. It is further deposed that police did not visit the
place of incident in his presence and even site plan of place of
incident was also not prepared in his presence. It is denied that
accused persons had no weapon or that no incident of robbery took
place with him or his cousin at any point of time. It is denied that
accused Neeraj was not overpowered at the spot or that he was not
handed over to his uncle or other relatives at the spot. It is also
denied that he did not produce his shirt to police during course of
investigation as it had no blood stain.
State vs Neeraj Ors on 13 January, 2025
16. PW7 Sh. Sanjay Sejwal deposed that on 09.03.2015,
he along-with Narender, Sonu, Ashok and Krishan were present
at Shakti Dhaba being run by Ashok at near Alijan Masjid, Lado
Sarai Mor, New Delhi. At about 1:00-2:00 PM, he heard noise of
fire from his backside and on this he and other persons present
there started running and PW7 also ran towards his residence.
After 10/15 minutes, when he returned back at Dhabha he saw
one person namely Sonu was lying on the floor in injured
condition having gunshot injuries. PW7 further deposed that he
made call to the police at 100 number whereon police came and
took injured Sonu to hospital and thereafter, PW7 went to PS
and recorded his statement Ex.PW7/A. PW7 further deposed that
later on, he came to know that Sonu had died due to gunshot
injury. PW7 had pointed out the spot vide pointing out memo
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 10 of 28
Ex.PW7/B. PW7 did not identify the accused persons before the
court during the trial. As this witness did not support the case of
the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for
the state with the permission of the court. PW7 was not cross
examined on behalf of accused.
Sc No.2709 (State vs . Neeraj & Anr.) on 29 April, 2011
8.4 While appreciating the evidence of witnesses and particularly in
the present like cases, the court has to take a pragmatic and practical
approach taking into account the mental condition at the relevant time. Here
was a very young girl who was going to the school and she was offered
motorcycle ride by her neighbour to drop her to school. Prosecutrix initially
resisted but sometime what happens is that, even one is not willing to accept
the request or offer of the other, but do not muster the courage to say "No"
forcefully. I consider that in the present case, the prosecutrix simply failed to
resist the act of the accused persons of her being taken away. An offence of
kidnapping is basically an offence against the guardianship of the minor.
The prosecutrix has also made a statement on oath regarding the fact that
while she was going to the school, she was intercepted by the accused
persons on her way and forcibly made her to sit on their motorcycle. I
consider that in the present case, the mother of the prosecutrix made a
Page 24 of 4
SC No.2709 (State Vs. Neeraj & Anr.)
specific statement on oath that the prosecutrix was taken out of her
guardianship by the accused persons. It has also come in the testimony
of the prosecutrix that both the accused persons were together when she
was being taken away by them.
Fir No. 251/2011 State vs . Neeraj Page No.1 Of 24 on 5 December, 2018
24. In the present case, secret information was received by
PW2 SI Desh Raj. He deposed that at about 1.00 p.m., one secret
informer came and informed him that one person would come after
sometime from the side of NSA Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Factory
area and would go to Jawala Nagar and that he was having ganja in
his possession, if raided can be caught with ganja. He informed the
duty officer telephonically and the said information was got lodged
vide DD no.14A through duty officer and he was also directed to
send some senior police officers at the spot. In cross examination, he
has stated that the informer had not disclosed the name of the
suspect. He had not recorded the secret information. He informed
the duty officer through his mobile phone. He does not remember
the telephone number from which he informed the duty officer. PW3
FIR No. 251/2011 State Vs. Neeraj Page No.19 of 24
HC Satish has also stated in cross examination that ASI Desraj had
not written the information on any paper. I have perused the
testimony of PW1 HC Rajender Kumar who was posted as Duty
Officer at the relevant time. He stated that he was on duty from 4
p.m to 12 night. He has only deposed about registration of FIR. DD
No. 14A was recorded at 1.20 p.m. Thus, prosecution has not
examined the DD writer who recorded DD no.14A regarding
receipt of secret information. However, the copy of said DD was
handed over to PW7 Insp. Sanjay Sinha who reached at the spot and
joined in the investigation. PW7 Insp. Sanjay Sinha has no where
stated that he had forwarded the copy of said DD no.14A to ACP.
PW2 has clearly stated that he had not recorded the secret
information but he passed the information to PS. PW2 has not stated
that he asked the Duty Officer to send the copy of DD to senior
officers. The prosecution has failed to examine the said DD writer. I
have perused the statement of the then SHO/Insp. Jarnail Singh
examined by the prosecution as PW4 in this case. He stated that on
21.08.2011 duty officer informed him over phone that DD no.14A
has been lodged on the information of ASI Desraj that a boy shall
come with ganja from the side of Bhola Nath Nagar towards Tota
Ram School. He was also informed that PW7 Insp.Sanjay Sinha has
been sent to help ASI Desraj. Firstly, the version of PW4 regarding
DD no.14A has come under improvement. He was confronted with
his statement Mark PX recorded by the IO in this respect where
nothing about DD no.14A has been found mentioned.
State vs . Neeraj on 24 December, 2011
25. Ravi Kant, (PW6), student of age 17 years also resiled
SC No. 24/2011 15/32
State Vs. Neeraj
from his previous statement on entering the witness box. PW6
testified that he was student of class 9th at the time of occurrence and
on 31/10/2007 at 6.30 am, he came out of his house for playing, saw
gathering of public persons in the street, became afraid and came
back to his house; thereafter 30/40 police officials came to his house
and he was taken to police post where he remained till 3 pm, was
made to sign the papers, then he came back home. PW6 stated that
he had come to know that somebody had died but neither he was
knowing who nor how he died nor who caused his death. Despite
cross examination at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ravi Kant
(PW6) has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner
whatsoever. Ravi Kant (PW6) denied of having seen accused Neeraj
having hit the deceased Shubh Karan with bat. Ravi Kant (PW6)
stated that accused Neeraj was resident of his locality. Also Ravi
Kant (PW6) stated that the incident did not take place in his
presence. Ravi Kant (PW6) stated that he had come to know later on
that accused Neeraj had caused injuries to that person but said
version is hearsay; inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 60
of Indian Evidence Act.
Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi S/O Late ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secretary ... on 26 September, 2011
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Division Bench of this Court while considering the applicability of the decision in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi (Supra), came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of the case in question are distinct and distinguishable and as such the service of Sri C.M. Pandey could not have been terminated merely considering the decision of the Apex Court aforesaid.
Sc No. 04/2010 State vs Neeraj Etc. Page No. 1 Of 21 on 10 May, 2014
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 02.09.2009
ASI Arvind Kumar along with Ct. Kuldeep was on duty in PCR. At
SC No. 04/2010 State Vs Neeraj etc. Page No. 1 of 21
around 11 PM when they reached near Nagalimanchi Bus Stand Ring
Road New Delhi they found crowd of people. One person namely Nitin
met them and handed over one person namely Neeraj from whose
possession one brown colour purse and two credit cards, one of City Bank
and another of SBI were recovered. Injured Nitin was taken in PCR Van
to hospital. Motorcycle of Neeraj bearing no. DL 5S V 6725 and
motorcycle of Nitin bearing number DL 7S AD 7107 were taken into
possession by the police. Thereafter, on receiving DD No. 41 PP Sarai
Kale Khan ASI Arvind Kumar reached at RML Hospital and collected
the MLC of injured Nitin and doctor declared injured Nitin fit for
statement. Thereafter statement of injured Nitin was recorded wherein
he stated that on 02.09.2009 he was coming back from his office situated
at Lajpat Nagar by bike bearing number DL 7S AD 7107. At about 10.15
PM he reached in front of Gate No. 4, Indraprastha Park, Ring Road, New
Delhi and stopped there to attend nature call. In the meantime, two boys
came there. One of them kept scissor on his back hip and other boy put
knife on his stomach. The demanded all the articles and money from
him. The person who had put a pair of scissor on his back picked up his
mobile phone Nokia 5800 from his right side pocket of pant, also picked
his wallet containing four credit cards of City Bank, ICICI, SBI and
HSBC, Rs. 5400/ in cash, two debit cards, driving license, PAN Card and
Registration Certificate (RC) of his motorcycle. He stated that initially he
declined to hand over his wallet to that boy then other boy who was
carrying knife, stabbed him with knife in his abdomen. After robbing
and causing injuries to him, accused persons fled away towards ITO side
on their bike.
State vs . Neeraj & Other on 30 May, 2012
15. Accused Mukesh stated that he used to supply gas
cylinder to Sunny at his hotel; Pramod was employee of Sunny; on the
asking of Pramod, he had left four filled gas cylinders at the shop of
Sunny; he demanded the money for the gas cylinders; father of Sunny
told him that he used to take out gas from cylinders and had
SC No. 35/2011 7/27
State Vs. Neeraj & Other
committed theft, so he should give some cylinders free of cost; later
Pramod gave him money of cylinders; Sunny and Pramod had some
altercation between them; Pramod is his relative from side of his in
laws; somebody had hit Pramod but not in his presence; he had gone
to his jhuggi; Vimlesh was his neighbour; he told Vimlesh to go to
Shani Bazar but he said that he will go later on; he had an altercation
with Vimlesh; Vimlesh told to his employer; Vikas, employer of
Vimlesh came with Sunny, Pramod to his jhuggi and gave him
beatings by legs and fist blows; people collected there; someone from
the crowd hit danda on head of Pramod; he ran away and police
falsely implicated him in this case.