Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 88 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar vs Bishnu Chand Lal Chaudhary And Ors on 8 January, 1985

State vs Lal Chand & Ors. on 20 May, 2011

22.PW9 Ct. Jitender Singh and PW10 HC Jagdish are formal witnesses who accompanied the I.O. at the time of arrest of accused persons FIR no. 375 / 07 State Vs Lal Cand etc PS Parsad Nagar 16 / namely Amar Chand, Lal Chand and Ganesh. PW11 Lady Ct. Mamta is also formal witness in whose presence accused Man Devi was arrested. PW12 Ct. Virender Kumar is a also a formal witness who accompanied the I.O. at the spot on receiving DD no. 2A and they lifted the exhibits from the spot. PW13 Ct. Gopal is also formal witness who got deposited 10 pulandas at FSL Rohini on 16.11.2007 at the direction of PW21 SI / IO. I have perused their cross­examination. No contrary evidence has come on record which may go to the root of this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Lal Chand, on 10 January, 2012

The Panch Witness (PW3) further deposed that he along with the Complainant (PW2) and the raiding party went to the room of accused Lal Chand whereas the other members of the raiding party remained outside and Complainant (PW2) inquired about accused Ashok Rajput and found him sitting in the room of accused Lal Chand. Thereafter accused Ashok Rajput was called by the Complainant (PW2) outside the room of accused Lal Chand and there was some conversation about reducing the bribe amount with accused Ashok Rajput who thereafter went inside the room of accused Lal Chand. The Panch Witness (PW3) further stated that accused Ashok Rajput returned from the room of accused Lal Chand and told the Complainant (PW2) that the bribe amount would not be reduced. Thereafter the Complainant (PW2) told accused Ashok Rajput that he had brought Rs. 15,000/­ which he handed over to accused Ashok Rajput in his right hand who kept the same in the front pocket of his shirt. The Panch Witness (PW3) further deposed that he gave a pre­determined signal on which the members of the raiding party immediately arrived at the spot. The Panch Witness (PW3) deposed that he told the Raid Officer (PW11) FIR No. 16/05 State Vs. Lal Chand & Ors. 9/31 that accused Ashok Rajput had accepted the bribe of Rs. 15,000/­ from the Complainant (PW2) and kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt on which the Raid Officer (PW11) disclosed his identity and challenged the accused but the accused refused acceptance of bribe. The Panch Witness (PW3) deposed that thereafter the GC notes were recovered from the pocket of accused Ashok Rajput and the Raid Officer (PW11) tallied their serial numbers with serial numbers mentioned in the pre­ raid report Ex.PW2/B which tallied and the GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. The Panch Witness (PW3) deposed that in his presence the right hand of the accused was dipped in some water type solution which turned pink and the same was transferred into two bottles which were sealed with the seal of BS and marked paper slips RHW­I&II were pasted on those bottles. Thereafter the wash of the left shirt pocket of accused Ashok Rajput was taken in a similar manner and the solution was sealed with the seal of BS marked paper slips LSSPW­I&II were pasted on those bottles.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 1020/17 ; State vs . Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 on 28 March, 2018

24.    In   totality  of   the   facts   and  circumstances   and   the above made discussions, the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC could not be proved against accused Manoj Chaudhary beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Manoj Chaudhary stands acquitted FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary       14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC  of offence charged of under section 498A and 406 IPC.  Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/­ eachand to place on record recent photograph and fresh address. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by accused. Same are accepted.    File be consigned to record room.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Nand Lal Etc Fir No. 86/05 Page 1 on 15 January, 2011

9. It has come in evidence that accused Nand Lal is the Devar of Saraswati Devi and accused Krishna Devi is the wife of Nand Lal. Thus, accused and injured are related to each other. In cross examination, Saraswati Devi admitted that she was not having cordial relations with accused and his family. It is borne out from the cross examination of Saraswati Devi that there was some property dispute between her and the accused. The defence of the accused is that the injuries are self inflicted and to prove this accused is also relying on the testimony of DW-1 Kesari Sahu father in law of Saraswati Devi who deposed that Saraswati Devi herself broke her head and thereafter got the accused falsely implicated. In cross examination, he stated that Saraswati Devi had caused injuries on her head in his presence but at the same time in reply to a question put by the learned APP, he stated that he cannot say whether he was present in Delhi or at village on the day of occurrence. If he himself is not sure whether he was present in Delhi on the date of occurrence or not, it is improbable that he had seen Saraswati Devi inflicting injuries on her State Vs. Nand Lal etc FIR No. 86/05 Page 7 head. He could not tell the name of any of the persons who were present at the spot at the time of incident. The defence taken by the accused is also not acceptable for the reason that PW-1 Sunita also sustained injuries in the occurrence and it is not the defence of the accused that the injuries sustained by her were also self inflicted. There is no reason why Sunita would inflict injuries to herself. The defence taken by the accused is therefore not acceptable.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Bishnu Kumar @ Vishnu Kumar @ Kalla on 22 April, 2024

13. A key element of the offence u/s 323/342/365/384/34 IPC is the identification of the Accused by the Complainant and the victim. In the present case, the complainant and the injured did not appear for their examination and remained untraceable, even upon service through DCP concerned. Accordingly, since their examination was not conducted by the prosecution, despite opportunity, the said witnesses were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. It is also observed that the said witnesses have remained untraceable since the year 2004, as in the judgment passed FIR No. 1840/2024 State vs. Bishnu @ Vishnu @ Kalla PS Sarita Vihar Page 6 of 8 against co-accused persons Anil Kumar, Omveer and Jatan by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 24.01.2012, as well, it is noted that the complainant and the injured could not be traced. There is no CCTV footage covering the incident. There is no other public witness, who had witnessed the offence. Further, as per the chargesheet, there is no recovery of the extorted mobile phone/ amount of Rs.10,000/- from the present accused. There is no CDR on record.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Nand Lal on 11 September, 2012

1. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Banwari Lal Sahu in which he alleged that on 25.05.2000 at about 1.30 pm, he was going to his house from Mangol Puri through Palam Dabri Road on his scooter No. DL 9SF 4796. When he reached near Temple Dabri mor, then a truck number DIG 8495 came from backside driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner and hit against his scooter from leftside. He fell down on the road and because of the collusion he sustained injuries on his hand, feet and other body parts. Someone called PCR and PCR Van took him to DDU hospital. At his complaint the present case was registered u/s 279/337 IPC. During 3 FIR No:496/2000 State Vs. Nand Lal investigation, the complainant /injured died during treatment and therefore section 304A was added. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nand Lal for the offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next