Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Harbans Singh & Anr on 10 April, 2003

State vs . Harbans Singh Etc., on 14 September, 2012

14. There is no any other evidence documentary or circumstantial to establish the fact that the complainant was in possession of the said shop and accused persons committed trespass in the said shop. Sole testimony of complainant which is itself contradictory and uncorroborated is not sufficient to establish the case of prosecution. Hence, keeping in view the above said discussion, court comes at the conclusion that prosecution failed to established its case beyond reasonable doubts. Benefit of doubt goes to accused persons. Hence, accused persons 10 FIR No:574/1999 State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., Harbans Singh, Radhey Shyam Mittal, Gopi Chand Gupta and Surender Singh stands acquitted in case FIR No.574/1999, PS: Dabri. Bail bonds of accused persons shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C. as no fresh bail bond furnished by the accused persons. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhakaran vs State Rep. By on 27 June, 2006

It is settled law that the unexplained delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses, the non-examination of the material witnesses and unusual behaviour and artificial conduct of the eye witnesses would create a doubt about the genuineness of the case of prosecution, as laid down in the decisions in 2004 (11) SUPREME COURT CASES 253 (HARJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB), 2003 (10) SUPREME COURT CASES 670 (MARUTI RAMA NAIK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA), 2003 (11) SUPREME COURT CASES 203 (STATE OF PUNJAB v. HARBANS SINGH), 2002 (2) SUPREME COURT CASES 737 (DEEPAK KUMAR v. RAVI VIRMANI) and 2003 CRI.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

C.B.I. vs . 1.Sh. Lala Ram S/O Sh. Lakhmi Singh on 4 August, 2010

L. J. 3623 the punch witness was a social worker, while in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Harbans Singh 2003 Crl. L.J. 2335 Hon'ble High Court had held that witness is a stock witness and was not reliable. In the case in hand the witness was from vigilance department. It was his daily job to participate in such like activities and if he has participated in such like activities, he has to depose in Courts also. Further accused assailed testimony of PW-1 Mann Singh by saying that he had been told that accused Lala Ram had connived with booth owners but accused Sobhraj Jaisinghania from whom money had been collected was not a booth owner. It hardly matters.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhikaji S/O Daulat Nagare And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 30 January, 2019

On the basis of appreciation of evidence on record, it is observed in State of Punjab v. Harbans Singh and Another that since blood stained clothes were not recovered from PW 4 and PW 11 who claimed to have carried the two injured to the hospital, their ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 04:23:31 ::: 16 apeal428.15 presence on the spot of occurrence was doubtful.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document

State vs . Harbans Singh. Fir No. 274/01, Ps Model ... on 18 July, 2012

11. The present case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the PW­1/complainant Sh. Bhagwan Dass. The complainant PW­1 Bhagwan Dass is the most important/vital witness to indict the criminal liability of the accused. The said witnesses have, though, proved the alleged incident of fall of deceased Dal Chand and his subsequent death, on the alleged date,time and place of incident, but he has categorically testified that he died on account of his own fault. Ld. APP for the state had cross­examined the said witness, but nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from the said witness. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the foundation laid down by the statement of the complainant Sh. Bhagwan Dass and once he has failed to support the State Vs. Harbans Singh. FIR No. 274/01, PS Model Town, U/s 337/304A IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next