Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1431 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Tahir vs State (Delhi) on 21 March, 1996

State vs . Azubnozu Ekene Patric, on 9 August, 2018

44. It is evident from the testimony of prosecution witnesses specially PW-2 Inspector P. C. Khanduri that sincere eforts were made to join the public witnesses but none of them inclined to join and went away telling their excuses. It is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join as witnesses in criminal cases as they do not want to indulge in hectic police and court proceedings. The non joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the case as otherwise the case is proved by way of consistent and cogent evidence. On examination the facts of the case as well as evidence of prosecution SC No. 440685/16 State Vs Azubnozu Ekene Patric Page No. 37/40 witnesses and the documents, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to discredit the convincing testimony of prosecution witnesses. This is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 (3) SCC 338. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Buridi Mohan Rao, on 31 August, 2018

46. It is evident from the testimony of prosecution witnesses specially PW-6 SI Satish Yadav that sincere Sessions Case No. 592/17                        State Vs. Buridi Mohan Rao                          Page No. 36/39 efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none of them inclined to join and went away telling their excuses. It is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join as witnesses in criminal cases as they do not want to indulge in hectic police and court proceedings. The non joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the case as otherwise the case is proved by way of consistent and cogent evidence. On examination the facts of the case as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to discredit the convincing testimony of prosecution witnesses. This is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 (3) SCC 338. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajesh @ Jaggi, on 1 April, 2019

58. It is evident from the testimony of prosecution witnesses specially PW-4 ASI Manoj Kumar and PW-5 Retd. SI Raj Kumar that efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none of them inclined to join and went away without disclosing their names. Moreover, recovery in the present case was effected at about 09.15 p.m. and the public witnesses were not easily available at that time and circumstances would have been different, if recovery was effected in day light or evening because at that time, there is possibility of easy availability of public witnesses. It is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join as witnesses in criminal cases as they do not want to indulge in hectic police and court proceedings. The non joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the case as otherwise the case is proved by way of consistent and cogent evidence. On examination the facts of the case as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents, this court is of the opinion that Sessions Case No. 473­17 State Vs. Rajesh @ Jaggi Page No. 40/42 there is no reason to discredit the convincing testimony of prosecution witnesses. This is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 (3) SCC 338. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Sunil Sahni, on 22 February, 2020

38. It is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join as witnesses in criminal cases as they do not want to indulge in hectic police and court proceedings. The non joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the case as otherwise the case is proved Sessions Case No. 583/17 State Vs. Sunil Sahni. Page No.32/42 by way of consistent and cogent evidence. On examination the facts of the case as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to discredit the convincing testimony of prosecution witnesses. This is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 (3) SCC 338. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Babatunde Banji on 18 May, 2013

In a case titled as Tahir Vs. State of Delhi 2000­AD(Del)­7­294 the FIR No.60/09, PS Special Cell Page 37 of 42 SC No. 3/10 Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the admissibility of disclosure statements had made a telling observation"If all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect." The said observations cannot be stated to be more suited than to the contention made on behalf of the State in the present case with respect to the disclosure statement asserted to have been given by the accused persons. The fact that the investigating officials have taken an absolutely incorrect stand with respect to the disclosures allegedly made by the accused persons is apparent from the application filed by the investigating officers seeking police custody of accused Baba Tunde. It is a matter of record in the said application, ExPW7/D1, police remand of accused Baba Tunde was sought by the investigating officer SI Anand Swaroop on the ground that this accused had disclosed that he used to procure drugs from one Haji and then further deliver it to his Nigerian counterparts in Delhi and that therefore the whole net work of the drug racket is to be unearthed. Very interestingly however in the purported disclosure statement given by accused Baba Tunde which has been exhibited as FIR No.60/09, PS Special Cell Page 38 of 42 SC No. 3/10 ExPW5/C there is absolutely no mention of any Haji ­ it is inter alia stated in the said disclosure that accused Baba Tunde had disclosed that he used to procure drugs from one person Abdul Wahid @ Baba. There is no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution with respect to the said discrepancy in the application filed for seeking police remand and the purported disclosure statement given by accused Baba Tunde. In case the averments made in the application seeking police remand are taken to be correct then clearly an inference will have to be drawn that the disclosure Ex.PW5/C was written by PW SI Anand Swaroop according to his own convenience. In such view of the matter, when the investigating official PW7 SI Anand Swaroop could write the disclosure statement of accused Baba Tunde as per his own convenience, the purported disclosure of Aka being relied upon by Ld. APP to contend that the recovery made from the house of accused Aka is not hit by the non compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act, can hardly be relied upon by this court. The testimony of this IO PW SI Anand Swaroop is otherwise also not free from doubt. Though this witness has deposed that on the intervening night of 22.09.2009­23.09.2009, he had returned alongwith accused Baba Tunde to PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony at about 01.45 AM and had thereafter only deposited the personal search articles of accused Baba Tunde with the malkhana incharge, the MHCM PW4 M. Baxla in his cross­examination FIR No.60/09, PS Special Cell Page 39 of 42 SC No. 3/10 has categorically stated that SHO R.S. Sehrawat had handed over to him the case property i.e. the pullandas on 22.09.2009 between 09.00 PM to 10.00 PM and that he had made entry no. 1455 with respect to the same and thereafter SI Anand Swaroop had deposited the personal search articles of accused Baba Tunde 10 minutes thereafter and he had made entry no. 1456 with respect to the same. He has specifically stated in his cross­examination that in case SI Anand Swaroop would have deposited the personal search articles of accused Baba Tunde with him after 12 O'clock of the intervening night of 22.09.2009, he would have mentioned the date of entry no. 1456 as 23.09.2009. The deposition of this witness, and the documentary evidence produced by him does show that SI Anand Swaroop has not deposed correct facts before this court with respect to the time of apprehension of accused Baba Tunde. Not only this, though this witness had deposed that on the date of raid at the house of accused Aka, apart from Inspector Satender Sangwan, HC Balraj and Ct. Rajesh had also accompanied him, both HC Balraj and Ct. Rajesh have not uttered a word about them being witnesses to the search of the house of accused Aka.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Daniel Obinuo, on 15 March, 2018

40. It is evident from the testimony of prosecution witnesses specially PW-10 SI Raj Malik that sincere eforts SC No. 440554/16 State Vs Daniel Obinuo Page No. 36/40 were made to join the public witnesses but none of them inclined to join and went away telling their excuses. It is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join as witnesses in criminal cases as they do not want to indulge in hectic police and court proceedings. The non joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the case as otherwise the case is proved by way of consistent and cogent evidence. On examination the facts of the case as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to discredit the convincing testimony of prosecution witnesses. This is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 (3) SCC 338. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next