Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 378 (1.80 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Harish Chandra Singh on 17 January, 1969

State vs 1. Harish Kumar on 20 March, 2011

After recording the statement of victim, the crime team was called at the spot by ASI Kishan Lal. The photographer also came there and took photographs of the spot. From the spot, the exhibits kerosene oil, matchbox, matchsticks, pieces of burnt clothes were seized in State Vs. Harish etc 4 different pulandas by the police and sealed with the seal of KL. When ASI Kishan Lal returned to the hospital, the victim had died. Thereafter, ASI Kishan Lal went to the house of SDM and informed him about the incident. The SDM directed to send the parents of the deceased to his office. The brother Tula Ram, father Ranjha Mal and mother Mrs. Ram Pyari went to the office of SDM. SDM gave the statement of Tula Ram to ASI Kishan Lal with his endorsement to take action as per provisions of law. The rukka was given by ASI Kishan Lal to the Inspector Kishan Kumar on which he made endorsement for registration of case under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and investigation was assigned by him to himself.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Arish Harish on 2 August, 2025

5.4 PW-4 ASI Lal Bahadur inter-alia deposed that on 26.10.2021, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as MHCM (CP) and one sealed pullanda (Plastic box) vide road certificate no. 159/21/2021, dt. 26.10.2021 was taken by him for depositing at FSL Rohini. He further deposed that he went to FSL Rohini and deposited the State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 8 of 16 sealed pullanda at FSL Rohini and he obtained the acknowledgment and copy of RC was attached with the case file. He further deposed that the pullanda was intact till it was in his possession and the seal was not tempered. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by ASI Harender, photocopy of register no. 19 was Mark A and copy of RC was Mark B and acknowledgment was Mark C. 5.5 PW-5 ASI Satish Rana deposed on similar lines as PW-1 HC Irfan and PW-2 HC Sarvan.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Harish Chander Etc. on 25 October, 2019

20. On 174A IPC, argument of ld. defence counsel is that accused Lalji Yadav, who at the time of arrest, used to reside with his brother i.e. co­accused Harish Chander in H. No. 282, Gali No. 8, Chandan Park, Libaspur, Delhi, had some dispute with his brother and State Vs. Harish Chander etc. SC No. 57980/16; FIR No. 71/12, PS S.P. Badli Page No. 12 of 15 started residing separately from him. The court did not send notice, summons, bailable warrants, NBWs and process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on the changed address. Next argument is that proclamation was not properly published because it was issued on 07.06.2013 and accused Lalji Yadav was to appear in the court on 27.07.2013. It was published only on 20.07.2013 and only seven days were given to the accused for appearance. Actually, the period should not be less than 30 days.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Harish Kumar on 9 April, 2013

8 In this case, so far as the witnesses examined are concerned, PW1 Sh. Kewal Kumar Kohli and PW2 Smt. Rita Kohli are the material witnesses of the prosecution. As discussed above, the testimony of PW1 is not convincing to a reasonable extent. He has not been able to state the incident elaborately and specifically. Being complainant and allegedly the injured in this case, his testimony must reflect a comprehensive and sensible story which is not available in the present case. It is also to be noted that during the course of cross­ Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 4/6 examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he has deposed that he does not remember who caused him hurt.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uday Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2023

The applicant could not have asked the questions relating to the statement given after the conclusion of his evidence in S.T. No. 196 of 2015 (State vs. Uday Yadav), since the evidence of P.W. 2 Pramod Kumar Sonkar recorded in S.T. No. 696 of 2019 (State vs. Harish Chandra), was material for the fair decision of the trial of S.T. No. No. 196 of 2015 and unless the opportunity to bring the real facts was not afforded to the applicant by his cross-examination there are chances of failure of justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next