Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1522 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.Etc on 7 December, 2011

State vs . Davinder Etc. Fir No.38/2011 ... on 31 August, 2019

33. In the backdrop of these four statements, few relevant aspects deserve a highlight. First aspect is regarding the presence of kerosene oil on the body of Renu. PW 5 Dr. Satish who first Result: Acquitted Page 46 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) medically examined Renu, specifically deposed that he did not detect any smell of kerosene coming from Renu. MLC of Renu prepared on 18.05.2010 also does not state anything about the possible presence of Kerosene. PW 4 Dr. Dhingra deposed about the possibility of Renu sustaining burns from accidental flames but his testimony is not of much value since he also stated that in view of postmortem having been conducted after a period of three months from date of sustaining burn injuries, it was not possible to give a definite opinion. Second aspect is regarding the testimony of PW­2 who deposed that accused persons used to constantly trouble the deceased on account of a property dispute and eventually, burnt her on account of the same. However, what is surprising is that none of the four statements of late Renu give away even a hint of any property dispute between Renu and accused persons. Surprisingly, neither PW 1 nor PW 6 deposed anything regarding harassment of Renu on account of property dispute. Further, as has already ben highlighted, the narration given by PW­2 in regard to the alleged 'bargaining' by accused persons with Renu before agreeing to douse the flames, is not substantiated by any evidence at all.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jai Pal Singh, Etc. on 12 February, 2014

He also admitted that accused Mushtaq told the IO that he was an illiterate person and that he is not knowing anything in respect of the label and what kind of label was pasted on the car. He admitted that IO had recorded statement on his own. He denied the suggestion that he had not given any statement or that he was not called by the IO on 29.01.1996. PW6 admitted that State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 8 he did not know on which date or what time disclosure statement of accused Jaipal was recorded. PW6 denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rakesh Pal Etc. on 15 January, 2016

His two sons Ranjit and Jaswant, who were already in Delhi, also reached at the matrimonial house of Poonam. The dead body of Poonam was already removed to hospital. Thereafter, they went to the hospital where his statement regarding identification of body was recorded and he proved the same on record as Ex.PW­4/A. He further proved the statement, which was made by him to police as Ex.PW­4/B. Since complainant was not supporting the case of prosecution as per his earlier statement given by him to police, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State by the permission of Court, but in his cross examination also he remained stuck to his stand and did not support the prosecution's story. During his cross examination conducted on behalf of State he proved on record the memo, vide which belongings of deceased i.e. nathiya (nose ring), four silver bichhua, one pair of artificial ear tops and one artificial nose ring were handed over to him, as Ex.PW­4/C. He also proved on record the memo vide which dead body of Poonam was handing over to them as Ex.PW­4/D. The marriage photograph of Poonam and Rakesh was handed over by him to police and he proved the memo of handing over of same as Ex.PW­4/E and the said photograph as Ex.PW­4/F. Page no. 10 /18 15.01.2016 SC No. 157/15 State Vs. Rakesh Pal Etc. FIR No. 612/14 PS Dabri
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Devender Pal on 10 March, 2026

11. Coming now to the facts of the case, prosecution has cited several witnesses including one public witness i.e. the complainant himself. As the complainant was eyewitness of the alleged offence, he would have been the best witness to this FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 5/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.10 16:32:49 +0530 case, however, to the utter dismay of prosecution, he unfortunately passed away and hence was dropped from the list of witnesses. Rest of the witnesses cited by the prosecution were only formal witnesses, who played some part in the investigation but were not first hand witnesses to the alleged incident. Thus, the guilt of the accused person could not have been proved by the prosecution from the mere testimony of said formal witnesses inasmuch as, the alleged incident was never committed in their presence.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bakhashi Ram And Others vs Satwant Singh Manak And Others on 26 November, 2013

74. We are also of the view that neither were general observations made by the learned Single Judge warranted nor was the learned Single Judge entitled to entertain and adjudicate the PIL (" effectively so") and was thus rather coram non-judice as held in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar case (supra) and Divine Retreat Centre's case (supra). We are not satisfied that there is any material which would entitle the original petitioner to similar or other direction from us assuming that we were examining the case de-novo.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State vs . Swinder Pal Singh on 29 January, 2019

5. PE was ordered to be closed as the complainant Manjit Singh who was repeatedly summoned as many as 15 times. However, on each and every date of hearing either complainant Manjit Singh failed to appear or he failed to produce the original documents relied upon by the prosecution. In view of the repeated failure of PW Manjit Singh to appear he was dropped from the list of witnesses. In the absence of testimony of complainant no purpose would have been served in examining the FIR No . 301/2005 State Vs Swinder Pal Singh. PS Kashmere Gate Page No. 3 of 5 remaining formal witnesses. Statement of accused Swinder Pal Singh u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded on 29.01.2019 wherein accused has pleaded innocence and he had opted not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments heard on 29.01.2019.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Davinder on 5 September, 2014

8. The other three witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3 & PW4 are the material witnesses who were present on spot at the time of apprehension of accused and recovery of country made pistol with live cartridge. PW2 deposed that he along with Ct. Rakesh Tyagi was on patrolling duty and at FIR NO.302/2007 PS Anand Vihar PAGE 3/5 STATE vs. DAVINDER about 7:30p.m they reached near CBD ground, Petrol Pump where ASI Zahir Ahmed/PW3, ASI Majid Khan/PW4, Ct. Manish and Ct. Naresh met us. But PW3 & PW4 have not deposed a single word about PW2 that he was also present on the spot at the time of recovery and apprehension of accused. PW2, PW3 & PW4 deposed that they left PS at about 5­5:30p.m but none of them could tell the DD entry number by which they the police station for patrolling. All the three witnesses deposed that petrol pump was open but no public witness was joined in the investigation. PW2 deposed that does not remember whether IO put any identification mark on the recovered pistol or cartridges to identify the same which has been recovered from the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Davinder on 22 May, 2014

A. The main argument of counsel for accused is that there is contradiction per se in the case of prosecution regarding the make of offending vehicle. Court has considered the alleged lapse in the case of prosecution. In the present case the investigation was set into motion on the basis of the complaint made to police Ex. PW2/A. In the said complaint it is mentioned that the offending vehicle was black and yellow colored taxi bearing number DL 1T 3718. Further the said complaint itself categorically mentions that the taxi was of make Ambassador and its driver fled with the same from the spot. However, the vehicle in question in present trial is having said number but is a maruti omni van. Thus the vehicle mentioned in the complaint and FIR No. 454/05 Page No. 5 of 7 State Vs. Davinder the vehicle mentioned in trial are of completely different make. No explanation regarding the same has come up in charge-sheet or through any of prosecution witnesses. Thus said aspect is totally unexplained. Ld. APP for state has argued that the registration number mentioned in the complaint and in the charge-sheet and in the evidence is same and thus there is no confusion as to the identity of vehicle. He has also argued that complainant was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity and therefore his testimony is un-rebutted. He has also argued that the accused has not disputed the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle no. DL 1T 3718. However Court is unable to agree to said arguments. When an accident occurs, the eyewitness first observes as to what is the kind of vehicle and only thereafter he observes the registration number of the vehicle. Admittedly some cars are alike and sometimes one can get confused regarding two vehicles of similar looks and design. However an ambassador car has a completely different body design from that of a maruti omni van. Thus the said contradiction is a material fact and even if accused failed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, the said contradiction is not explained away.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next