Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (1.26 seconds)

State vs Hari Om Ors on 25 September, 2024

She deposed that the complaint was read over by her prior to signing on it. She admitted that her son was not medically Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2024.09.25 14:26:14 +0530 FIR No. 526/13 State Vs. Hari Om & Ors. Page No. 7 of 20 examined. She deposed that her son was also bleeding from his mouth but no treatment was given to him nor his medical examination was conducted. She denied that no quarrel had taken place between accused persons and her son. He deposed that the police was also informed about the fact that she was rescued by the lady neighbours but it was also not mentioned by the police in her complaint. She denied that she was not having any problem in her jaw and she was directed to come in OPD on next date on her request. She had denied that she has manipulated the false X-ray Report in connivance of the doctors of Max Hospital as she was an employee of the hospital. She denied that there was an enmity between the accused persons and her family. She also denied that on 28.08.2013, she alongwith Malkhan, Desh Raj, Arjun, Hira, Nihal Singh and her children went to the house of accused persons to gave beatings to them. She denied that a complaint in that regard was also made by the accused persons with the SHO concerned or that no action was taken on such complaint.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Hari Om Fir No. 135/12, Ps-Badarpur on 11 August, 2016

She has deposed before the Court, she reiterated the contents of her written complaint. She deposed that she returned back to her house on 04.04.2012 and gave the above mentioned complaint to PS Badarpur on the next Pronounced in open court on 11.08.2016 Page no 10 of 16 State Vs. Hari Om FIR No. 135/12, PS-Badarpur date but no action was taken by the Police. Thereafter, she visited Higher Officials and finally the FIR was registered on 15.05.2012. Thus, there was no delay in reporting the matter to the Police. Delay of four days stands duly explained by the complaint dated 05.04.2012 itself. The delay of few days was due to the absence of the mother of the victim and the illness and inability of the father of the victim. Further, non- examination of father of the victim is also duly explained by the complaint dated 05.04.2012 itself wherein it is stated that he remains ill and is not capable of doing anything. The counsel for accused did not cross examine the witness on these aspect. It has been duly proved by the testimony of PW-5 that she was informed about the incident telephonically on 02.04.2012. She gave a written complaint immediately after returning from Vaishno Devi but due to inaction of Police, no further investigation was done till they followed up the matter with Higher Authorities.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Hari Om on 17 January, 2026

8) The manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. was stated to State Vs. Hari Om FIR No. 463/18 U/s. 33 Delhi Excise Act 4/11 be conducted on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and alleged recovery of liquor makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that accused was apprehended along with the alleged illicit liquor at public place but there is no public witness in the present case. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on the following case laws:-
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Amit @ Hari Om on 8 May, 2018

Announced in open court       (SACHIN GUPTA)  on 8th Day of May, 2018                 MM­3/North District                                                         Rohini Courts/Delhi, 08.05.2018 FIR No. 962/14, PS. Model Town, CIS No. 2533/18       State Vs. Amit @ Hari Om    7/7
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next