Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 110 (4.92 seconds)
Documents citing Javed Masood & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 March, 2010

Sanaullah Khan vs State Of Bihar on 15 February, 2013

In Javed Masood and Another vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) cited by Mr. Sharan, this Court relying on its earlier decision in Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari vs. State [(2005) 5 SCC 258] has held that it was open to the defence to rely on the evidence led by the prosecution. In this case, we have found that the evidence of PW-7 does not contradict the evidence of PW- 6 and does not support the defence. It, however, appears from the evidence of PW-3 that it was Arvind who had a Khatal at Old Bakri Bazar. We have perused the evidence of PW-3 and we do not find that PW-3 has stated that the appellant did not have a Khatal on the verandah of the Pearl Cinema. Of course, PW4 has stated that the appellant runs business of bakri (sheep goat) and never ran milk business but in the evidence of PW-4 there is nothing to show that the room on the verandah of Pearl Cinema was not in the occupation of the appellant. At best the defence can rely on PW-4 to argue that the appellant did not carry on milk business and therefore the motive for committing the offence did not exist. The evidence of PW4 may thus create some doubt with regard to the motive of the appellant to kill Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar. Where other circumstances lead to the only hypothesis that the accused has committed the offence, the Court cannot acquit the accused of the offence merely because the motive for committing the offence has not been established in the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 20 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Anil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru.Cbi on 17 May, 2013

Placing reliance over the judgment in the case of Javed Masood (supra) it is observed that in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 19, 25, 14 which has not been challenged by the prosecution the presence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 8 to 10 at the place, time of occurrence becomes doubtful. The examination in chief of Ravindra Nath Singh, Subodh Yadav, P.Ws. 7, 20 in paragraph 1 indicate that on 8.6.1998 P.W. 7 had come to Purnea Bar Library to meet a friend Advocate where he learnt from his old acquaintance Subodh Yadav, P.W. 20 that Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav had called Rajan Tiwary to Purnea who is about to kill M.L.A. Dilip Yadav and Ajit Sarkar as P.W. 20 had given to him a written piece of paper in which it was so written. Aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 7, 20 cannot be accepted for the failure of P.Ws. 7, 20 to take any step in the matter including lodging of the F.I.R. against Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Rajan Tiwary. Having not lodged F.I.R. strong inference of falsehood of the said statement and existence of piece of paper dated 8.6.1998 has to be drawn and consequential benefit given to the appellants. The evidence of Domai Thakur P.W. 15 and Shambhoo Prasad Mehta, P.W. 16 that they had seen Anil Yadav, Harish Chaudhary, Amar Yadav and one unknown in Harda Market in the afternoon of 14.6.1998 taking rounds on the market road over red bullet and black motorcycle and thereafter followed the car of the deceased is also not worthy of credence in view of the evidence of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 249 I.O. C.B.I., P.W. 61 vide paragraphs 109, 289 that P.Ws. 15, 16 had not made such statement before him. Reliance placed by the prosecution on telephone print out Ext. 3 series to establish the conspiracy hatched by the appellant for elimination of Ajit Sarkar is also misplaced. Perusal of Ext. 3 series indicates that call of long duration was made in the morning of 14.6.1998 from Delhi residence of appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav to his Purnea residence. The print out further indicates that on the date of occurrence at 18 hours 16 minute 48 second call of 42 second duration and at 18 hours 18 minute 16 second call of 32 second duration was made from Katihar P.C.O. telephone no. 34679 to Delhi residence of appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav on telephone no. 3730767 subscribed in his name and on telephone no. 3736358 subscribed in the name of his wife. On the same day at 20 hours 08 minute 41 second call from the same P.C.O. of one minute 26 second duration was made to Gorakhpur residence of appellant Rajan Tiwary on telephone no. 0551322035. From the print out Ext. 3 series, the evidence of Ramashray Rajak, P.W. 6 officer of the telephone company who issued print out and Om Prakash Ramnani, P.W. 52 husband of the telephone booth owner, it is impossible to identify either the caller or the called or the contents of their conversation, as such, it is not safe to rely on the print out, Ext. 3 series in support of the prosecution case. In this connection, it may be stated here that this Court categorically asked the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 250 counsel for the C.B.I. to indicate the material on the basis of which it is concluded by C.B.I. that telephone no. 0551322035 is the telephone subscribed by appellant Rajan Tiwary at his Gorakhpur residence. Counsel could not refer to any material, as such, it is difficult for this Court to accept the submission that Rajan Tiwary made call of one minute 26 second duration from Katihar P.C.O. booth no. 34679 to his Gorakhpur residence on 14.6.1998 at 20 hours 08 minute 41 second. Recovery of the two steel core portions from the car of the deceased on 3.3.1999 and the report of Rup Singh, P.W. 33 dated 22.3.1999, Ext. 9/1 that the aforesaid two steel core portions were fired from 7.62 MM assault rifle cannot be relied upon as possibility of plantation of the two steel core portions in the car of the deceased cannot be ruled out after its release by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea under order dated 25.7.1998 in favour of Madhvi Bose (Sarkar), wife of the deceased, whereafter the car was parked in the garage of Nitu da for repair wherefrom the two steel core portions were recovered on 3.3.1999 i.e. after about 9 months of the occurrence. Photograph, material Ext. VII in which appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav his wife and child are seen with appellant Rajan Tiwary is indicative of the association between the two appellants seen in the photograph but association simplicitor does not establish hatching and execution of conspiracy by them and others.
Patna High Court Cites 188 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi on 17 May, 2013

Placing reliance over the judgment in the case of Javed Masood (supra) it is observed that in view of the evidence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 248 of P.Ws. 19, 25, 14 which has not been challenged by the prosecution the presence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 8 to 10 at the place, time of occurrence becomes doubtful. The examination in chief of Ravindra Nath Singh, Subodh Yadav, P.Ws. 7, 20 in paragraph 1 indicate that on 8.6.1998 P.W. 7 had come to Purnea Bar Library to meet a friend Advocate where he learnt from his old acquaintance Subodh Yadav, P.W. 20 that Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav had called Rajan Tiwary to Purnea who is about to kill M.L.A. Dilip Yadav and Ajit Sarkar as P.W. 20 had given to him a written piece of paper in which it was so written. Aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 7, 20 cannot be accepted for the failure of P.Ws. 7, 20 to take any step in the matter including lodging of the F.I.R. against Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Rajan Tiwary. Having not lodged F.I.R. strong inference of falsehood of the said statement and existence of piece of paper dated 8.6.1998 has to be drawn and consequential benefit given to the appellants. The evidence of Domai Thakur P.W. 15 and Shambhoo Prasad Mehta, P.W. 16 that they had seen Anil Yadav, Harish Chaudhary, Amar Yadav and one unknown in Harda Market in the afternoon of 14.6.1998 taking rounds on the market road over red bullet and black motorcycle and thereafter followed the car of the deceased is also not worthy of credence in view of the evidence of I.O. C.B.I., P.W. 61 vide paragraphs 109, 289 that P.Ws. 15, 16 had not made such statement before him. Reliance placed by the prosecution on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 249 telephone print out Ext. 3 series to establish the conspiracy hatched by the appellant for elimination of Ajit Sarkar is also misplaced. Perusal of Ext. 3 series indicates that call of long duration was made in the morning of 14.6.1998 from Delhi residence of appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav to his Purnea residence. The print out further indicates that on the date of occurrence at 18 hours 16 minute 48 second call of 42 second duration and at 18 hours 18 minute 16 second call of 32 second duration was made from Katihar P.C.O. telephone no. 34679 to Delhi residence of appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav on telephone no. 3730767 subscribed in his name and on telephone no. 3736358 subscribed in the name of his wife. On the same day at 20 hours 08 minute 41 second call from the same P.C.O. of one minute 26 second duration was made to Gorakhpur residence of appellant Rajan Tiwary on telephone no. 0551322035. From the print out Ext. 3 series, the evidence of Ramashray Rajak, P.W. 6 officer of the telephone company who issued print out and Om Prakash Ramnani, P.W. 52 husband of the telephone booth owner, it is impossible to identify either the caller or the called or the contents of their conversation, as such, it is not safe to rely on the print out, Ext. 3 series in support of the prosecution case. In this connection, it may be stated here that this Court categorically asked the counsel for the C.B.I. to indicate the material on the basis of which it is concluded by C.B.I. that telephone no. 0551322035 is the telephone Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 250 subscribed by appellant Rajan Tiwary at his Gorakhpur residence. Counsel could not refer to any material, as such, it is difficult for this Court to accept the submission that Rajan Tiwary made call of one minute 26 second duration from Katihar P.C.O. booth no. 34679 to his Gorakhpur residence on 14.6.1998 at 20 hours 08 minute 41 second. Recovery of the two steel core portions from the car of the deceased on 3.3.1999 and the report of Rup Singh, P.W. 33 dated 22.3.1999, Ext. 9/1 that the aforesaid two steel core portions were fired from 7.62 MM assault rifle cannot be relied upon as possibility of plantation of the two steel core portions in the car of the deceased cannot be ruled out after its release by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea under order dated 25.7.1998 in favour of Madhvi Bose (Sarkar), wife of the deceased, whereafter the car was parked in the garage of Nitu da for repair wherefrom the two steel core portions were recovered on 3.3.1999 i.e. after about 9 months of the occurrence. Photograph, material Ext. VII in which appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav his wife and child are seen with appellant Rajan Tiwary is indicative of the association between the two appellants seen in the photograph but association simplicitor does not establish hatching and execution of conspiracy by them and others.
Patna High Court Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Rajan Tiwary vs State Of Bihar Thru.C.B.I on 17 May, 2013

Placing reliance over the judgment in the case of Javed Masood (supra) it is observed that in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 19, 25, 14 which has not been challenged by the prosecution the presence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 8 to 10 at the place, time of occurrence becomes doubtful. The examination in chief of Ravindra Nath Singh, Subodh Yadav, P.Ws. 7, 20 in paragraph 1 indicate that on 8.6.1998 P.W. 7 had come to Purnea Bar Library to meet a friend Advocate where he learnt from his old acquaintance Subodh Yadav, P.W. 20 that Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav had called Rajan Tiwary to Purnea who is about to kill M.L.A. Dilip Yadav and Ajit Sarkar as P.W. 20 had given to him a written piece of paper in which it was so written. Aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 7, 20 cannot be accepted for the failure of P.Ws. 7, 20 to take any step in the matter including lodging of the F.I.R. against Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Rajan Tiwary. Having not lodged F.I.R. strong inference of falsehood of the said statement and existence of piece of paper dated 8.6.1998 has to be drawn and consequential benefit given to the appellants. The evidence of Domai Thakur P.W. 15 and Shambhoo Prasad Mehta, P.W. 16 that they had seen Anil Yadav, Harish Chaudhary, Amar Yadav and one unknown in Harda Market in the afternoon of 14.6.1998 taking rounds on the market road over red bullet and black motorcycle and thereafter followed the car of the deceased is also not worthy of credence in view of the evidence of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 249 I.O. C.B.I., P.W. 61 vide paragraphs 109, 289 that P.Ws. 15, 16 had not made such statement before him. Reliance placed by the prosecution on telephone print out Ext. 3 series to establish the conspiracy hatched by the appellant for elimination of Ajit Sarkar is also misplaced. Perusal of Ext. 3 series indicates that call of long duration was made in the morning of 14.6.1998 from Delhi residence of appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav to his Purnea residence. The print out further indicates that on the date of occurrence at 18 hours 16 minute 48 second call of 42 second duration and at 18 hours 18 minute 16 second call of 32 second duration was made from Katihar P.C.O. telephone no. 34679 to Delhi residence of appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav on telephone no. 3730767 subscribed in his name and on telephone no. 3736358 subscribed in the name of his wife. On the same day at 20 hours 08 minute 41 second call from the same P.C.O. of one minute 26 second duration was made to Gorakhpur residence of appellant Rajan Tiwary on telephone no. 0551322035. From the print out Ext. 3 series, the evidence of Ramashray Rajak, P.W. 6 officer of the telephone company who issued print out and Om Prakash Ramnani, P.W. 52 husband of the telephone booth owner, it is impossible to identify either the caller or the called or the contents of their conversation, as such, it is not safe to rely on the print out, Ext. 3 series in support of the prosecution case. In this connection, it may be stated here that this Court categorically asked the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 250 counsel for the C.B.I. to indicate the material on the basis of which it is concluded by C.B.I. that telephone no. 0551322035 is the telephone subscribed by appellant Rajan Tiwary at his Gorakhpur residence. Counsel could not refer to any material, as such, it is difficult for this Court to accept the submission that Rajan Tiwary made call of one minute 26 second duration from Katihar P.C.O. booth no. 34679 to his Gorakhpur residence on 14.6.1998 at 20 hours 08 minute 41 second. Recovery of the two steel core portions from the car of the deceased on 3.3.1999 and the report of Rup Singh, P.W. 33 dated 22.3.1999, Ext. 9/1 that the aforesaid two steel core portions were fired from 7.62 MM assault rifle cannot be relied upon as possibility of plantation of the two steel core portions in the car of the deceased cannot be ruled out after its release by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea under order dated 25.7.1998 in favour of Madhvi Bose (Sarkar), wife of the deceased, whereafter the car was parked in the garage of Nitu da for repair wherefrom the two steel core portions were recovered on 3.3.1999 i.e. after about 9 months of the occurrence. Photograph, material Ext. VII in which appellant Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav his wife and child are seen with appellant Rajan Tiwary is indicative of the association between the two appellants seen in the photograph but association simplicitor does not establish hatching and execution of conspiracy by them and others.
Patna High Court Cites 188 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Mahmood Ali vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2024

33. The record reveals that P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad has not supported the prosecution case in the cross-examination, he deposed before the court that the report was not written by him, rather he made signature on it. He did not seen the incident and he was not present at the place of occurrence. He lodged the report at the behest of the neighbours and did not give statement to the police. He further deposed that he reached to the place of occurrence after half an hour and his maternal uncle was taken to the hospital. After looking to the statement of the P.W.-1 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Masood (supra), it is evident that P.W.-1 has not supported the prosecution case. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid case are extracted herein below:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next