Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing Sheikh Jahangir vs State on 4 July, 2022

State vs . on 25 July, 2022

47. The FSL report Ex.PW25/B in the present case proves that the country made pistol recovered at the instance of the accused had been used to fire the bullet which caused the death of Mohd. Mumtaz. Recovery of the same has been proved by PW-24 Inspector Braj Mohan, PW-16 HC Kailash Yadav and PW-17, Ct. Amit Kumar. PW-1 Manish Sharma and PW-3 Mustafa have identified the accused Rahul to be the person who fired upon PW-3 Mustafa but the bullet hit the deceased Mohd. Mumtaz. The probative value of the evidence on record when put into scales for a cumulative evaluation supports the inherent probability of the version of the prosecution. Even if a doubt arises that the accused Rahul was shown to PW-1 Manish Sharma, as held in the case of Ramjan Vs State (supra), what is material is identification in the dock. TIP proceedings are not a cast iron straight jacket legal proposition admitting of no exceptions. It is a safe rule of prudence to look for corroboration of a sworn testimony of a witness in Court regarding the identity of the person accused not previously known to the witness. In the present case, the identification of the accused Rahul in the Court by PW-1 Manish Sharma and PW-3 Mustafa stands corroborated by the recovery of weapon of offence Ex.P7 which has been proved by FSL report to have been the weapon from which the bullet recovered from the head of the deceased had been fired/ discharged.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi And Ors. on 29 October, 2024

47. The FSL report Ex.PW25/B in the present case proves that the country made pistol recovered at the instance of the accused had been used to fire the bullet which caused the death of Mohd. Mumtaz. Recovery of the same has been proved by PW-24 Inspector Braj Mohan, PW-16 HCKailash Yadav and PW-17, Ct. Amit Kumar. PW-1 Manish Sharma and PW-3 Mustafa have identified the accused Rahul to be the person who fired upon PW-3 Mustafa but the bullet hit the deceased Mohd. Mumtaz. The probative value of the evidence on record when put into scales for a cumulative evaluation supports the inherent probability of the version of the prosecution. Even if a doubt arises that the accused Rahul was shown to PW-1 Manish Sharma, as held in the case of Ramjan Vs State (supra), what is material is identification in the dock. TIP proceedings are not a cast iron straight jacket legal proposition admitting of no exceptions. It is a safe rule of prudence to look for corroboration of a sworn testimony of a witness in Court regarding the identity of the person accused not previously known to the witness. In the present case, the identification of the accused Rahul in the Court by PW-1 Manish Sharma and PW-3 Mustafa stands corroborated by the recovery of weapon of offence Ex.P7 which has been proved by FSL report to have been the weapon from which the bullet recovered from the head of the deceased had been fired/ discharged.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Gorakh Jagannath Dalvi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2022

6. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Shermale has argued that after the applicant was released on interim bail, he has threatened the complainant. For about six days the complainant was hospitalized Page 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2022 14:33:19 ::: 907aba718-22 and had undergone the surgery. Therefore, report could not be lodged immediately. He relied on the case of Nasiruddin Vs. State (NCT) Delhi, and others, 2014 (5) SCC(Cri) 773 and order passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1308/2021 (Janardhan Kamlakar Nawale Vs. State of Maharashtra) dated 24th February, 2022. Relying on these case laws, he has vehemently argued that the applicant has no case for anticipatory bail. He has also referred to representation made by villagers against the applicant dated 1st June, 2018. He has tried to point out that the applicant has no good reputation and he is very much aggressive and therefore village women have made representation to the Superintendent of Police for taking action against aggressive activities of the applicant. He prayed to reject the application.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S G Mehare - Full Document
1