Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.57 seconds)

State vs Kulwinder Singh on 30 July, 2014

PW2 is Shri Braham Pal wrongly cited as PW3 deposed that on 14.6.1987,he used to reside at Village Khajoori Khas, Delhi and was a farmer. On that day, after receiving the information, he went to the sot i.e. Wazirabad Road near Brijpuri colony with his elder brother Braham Singh and identified the dead body of Dhoom Singh S/o Shiv Charan who was the brother in law of his elder brother Braham Singh. The identification memo is already Ex. PW1/N. PW3 is ASI Dharambir Singh wrongly cited as PW4 who deposed that on 16.6.1987 he was posted at PS Yamuna Vihar as Ct. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Ram Dal and the identified the accused Kulwinder Singh who was arrested in the present case and personally searched vide personal search memo already Ex. PW1/R. The FIR no. 258/87 STATE VS. KULWINDER SINGH page 16 of 16 pages Driving licence of the accused was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/S. PW5 Inspector Ram Dal had deposed that o n 13.06.87 he was posted at PS Yamuna Vihar now called Gokalpuri as SI. On receiving DD no. 24A, he alongwith Ct. Daya Singh arrived at the spot i.e. Main Wazirabad road, opposite Brij Puri near North Ghonda, Yamuna Vihar crossing where he found a dead body of a male person aged about 35­40 years at the road in an accidental condition who was later on identified as Dhoom Singh S/o Shiv Charan . Further he deposed that at the distance of 50­60 steps from dead body one truck bearing no. DEG 4207 was also stationed and one cycle make Atlas of black colour was lying entangled beneath the truck near right front tyre and one pair of hawai chappal of deceased was lying. One eye witness namely Vijender met him and narrated the facts of accident. He came to know that the driver of the offending vehicle had already ran away from the spot. He recorded his statement already Ex. PW1/A attested by him at point B on which he prepared his endorsement Ex. PW5/A and gave the same to Ct,. Daya Singh for getting FIR registered. During investigation, he inspected the site at the instance of complainant Vijender Singh and he prepared the site plan already Ex. PW1/B. I got the photographs of the spot and took the truck into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/F. I took the aforesaid cycle into police possession vide memo Ex. PW1/E . He took the aforesaid pair of hawai chappal into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/D. Further he conducted the proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C of deceased Dhoom Singh and got postmortem conducted on the dead body of deceased at S. Mandi Mortuary and obtained postmortem report and after postmortem he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased namely Hatim Singh vide handing over memo Ex. PW5/E .
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kulwinder Singh & Others on 1 June, 2015

17. As   already   observed,   PW­1   HC   Abhay   Singh   (Duty  Officer), PW­3 HC Sunil Kumar [MHC(M)], PW­5 Insp. Manoj Kumar  (second IO), PW­6 Rajbir Singh (Record Clerk) and PW­8 Smt. Barkha  Gupta are formal witnesses of the prosecution. The entire incident is  alleged   to   have   happened   with   complainant   Manish   Kumar   Dubey.  Complainant Manish Kumar Dubey was the only person, who would  have thrown light regarding the robbery of his Matiz car by the accused  persons. He was also the witness, who would have told as to how he was  kidnapped and wrongfully confined by the offenders. Complainant was  the only witness to tell the court as to who caused injuries to him at the  SC No. 66/14  State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors.  5 of 6 time of committing robbery of his car no. DL­3CQ­7835. Due to non­ examination   of   complainant   Manish   Kumar   Dubey,   prosecution   has  miserably failed to prove its case against any of the accused persons.  The case property i.e. car No. DL­3CQ­7835, which is alleged to have  been robbed from the complainant itself has not been produced in the  court during the course of trial.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Furkan @ Furki Etc. on 5 March, 2013

21. Before parting with this case, I would like to comment on the working condition of CCTV cameras in Jail premises. This is a matter of concern for the system that CCTV footages are not being provided by the jail staff as and when such uncalled incidents are reported to the police. When the entire Tihar jail is covered by the CCTV cameras, then how come these cameras stops working at the time of incident and jail officials merely states that cameras were not working at that time and no CCTV footage is available of the incident. The purpose of installation of CCTV cameras in the jail premises is seems to be defeated. I have not seen even a single instance where CCTV footage has been provided by the jail authorities so that truth can be find out. In case CCTV footage is not available due to non­functioning of camera's, liability of the officer or agency concerned shall be fixed who are responsible/in­charge of CCTV camera's maintenance at that particular time. In the present case, the incident occurred at deodhi where two cameras were installed but CCTV footage has not been provided. This court has sent the judgment in case FIR No. 14/12 titled as State Vs. Kulwinder to the worthy DG, Prison, Tihar to look into the matter but no communication has been done till date by the Jail Administration.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sonvir And Another on 21 May, 2013

22.Before parting with this case, I would like to comment on the working condition of CCTV cameras in Jail premises. This is a matter of concern for the system that CCTV footages are not being provided by the jail staff as and when such uncalled incidents are reported to the police. When the entire Tihar jail is covered by the CCTV cameras, then how come these cameras stops working at the time of incident and jail officials merely states that cameras were not working at that time and no CCTV footage is available of the incident. The purpose of FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10 of 11 installation of CCTV cameras in the jail premises is seems to be defeated. I have not seen even a single instance where CCTV footage has been provided by the jail authorities so that truth can be find out. In case CCTV footage is not available due to non­functioning of camera's, liability of the officer or agency concerned shall be fixed who are responsible/in­charge of CCTV camera's maintenance at that particular time. In the present case, the incident occurred in high risk ward but CCTV footage has not been provided. This court has sent the judgment in case FIR No. 14/12 titled as State Vs. Kulwinder and State Vs. Furkan etc. FIR No. 76/2012 to the worthy DG, Prison, Tihar to look into the matter but no communication has been done till date by the Jail Administration.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shadab on 3 September, 2014

28. Before parting with this case, I would like to comment on the working condition of CCTV cameras in Jail premises. This is a matter of concern for the system that CCTV footages are not being provided by the jail staff as and when such uncalled incidents are reported to the police. When the entire Tihar jail is covered by the CCTV cameras, then how come these cameras stop working at the time of incident and jail officials merely states that cameras were not working at that time and no CCTV footage is available of the incident. The purpose of installation of CCTV cameras in the jail premises, is seems to be defeated. I have not seen even a single instance where CCTV footage has been provided by the jail authorities so that truth can be find out. In case CCTV footage is not available due to non­functioning of camera's, liability of the officer or agency concerned shall be fixed who are responsible/in­charge of CCTV camera's maintenance at that particular time. This court had sent the judgment in case FIR No. 14/12 titled as State Vs. Kulwinder and State Vs. Furkan etc. FIR No. 76/2012 to the worthy DG, Prison, Tihar to look into the matter but no communication has been done till date by the Jail Administration.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next