Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 164 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Ashish Kumar Roy And Ors on 3 December, 2004

State vs Ashish Kumar on 26 September, 2025

16. PE was closed vide order dated 22.01.2025 and statement of the SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 7 of 34 accused u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he had gone to the hospital to see the injured Ms. Sanchi on 17.02.2018 and he was arrested from there due to property dispute between Panna Lal and father of the deceased. He chose to lead defence evidence but no DW was examined by him despite opportunity. It was stated by him in his statement recorded on 29.04.2025, that he does not want to lead DE and as such, DE was closed.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashish Kapoor And Ors on 20 March, 2024

43. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of pistol and knife from accused Asif Malik and Devender respectively, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. All the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution have remained inimical to the case of the prosecution regarding complicity of the accused persons namely Ashish Kapoor, Devender and Asif Malik in the conspiracy to commit murder of Rajaram and firing by accused Ashish Kapoor upon Rajaram in furtherance of common intention of all SC No. 3835/19 FIR No.598/2014 PS Preet Vihar Page 28 of 29 State Vs. Ashish Kapoor & ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashish Kumar on 23 March, 2026

SINGAL 2026.03.22 19:52:00 +0530 Pronounced in the open (GAURAV SINGAL) Court on 23.03.2026 JMFC-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi This judgment contains 13 signed pages. State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 119/2018 13 of 14 ANNEXURE # Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witnesses. PW-1 HC Kuldeep Duty Officer. PW-2 Ct. Sanjay Malik Complainant. PW-3 Ct. Thakur Das MHC(M) with register no. 19 PW-4 Ct. HC Vikram IO of the case. PW-5 HC Praveen MHC(M) Exhibit Description of The Witness who proved No. Document or attested the document 1. Original rukka PW-1 2. Site Plan PW-2 3. Seizure memo PW-2 4. Disclosure PW-4 5. Road Certificate admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C Ex. X1.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 27 April, 2023

He did not depose specifically where his son was on the day of incident, how far he lives away from the place of incident. He did not explain who his neighbours are. Further, he merely stated that he was watching television when accused persons entered his house, but did not testify anything about how this entry was made possible. He didn't say if any Cr. No. 19603/2019 State vs. Ashish & ors. Page no. 7/11 one opened the door of his house, if the same was usually kept unlocked by him, or if he himself let the accused persons inside his house. There is no explanation on record if his neighbours witnessed the forceful entry, whether he raised a hue and cry or not , and whether it was even possible for his voice to travel outside his house. He did not even explain which part of the house the room where the alleged assault took place is situated, and if his neighbours etc could have heard him, if he had indeed raised an alarm at the time of incident. He testified in his cross examination that none from his family came to rescue him on the day of incident, but did not unambiguously depose that no one was present in his house to do so. A lot of aspects of the case were left unexplained by complainant. These gaps in his testimony dent his version, and case of prosecution.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashish Kumar on 21 July, 2025

"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 156/2019 PS Swaroop Nagar 8 of 12 examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well- settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions."
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashish on 8 April, 2024

5. Since the complainant PW1/complainant Ashok Kumar and the PW2/victim Shyam Babu Paswan turned hostile and the IO stood examined in respect of the Page no. 5 / 11 FIR No.164/2023 (State vs. Ashish) PS Sagarpur investigation carried out, therefore PE was closed on 18.03.2024, at request of Ld. APP, for the reason that the remaining witnesses of the prosecution were only police witnesses and formal witnesses, sufficient only to prove the investigation of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashish on 6 April, 2024

19. It should be noted that the public witnesses have not joined in the present investigation. From the cross examination of PW4 HC Sudesh Kumar who also FIR no. 82/2020 State Vs. Ashish 6/10 happens to be the IO of the case it is admitted fact that IO did not join any public person in the investigation and no notice was even served on any public person to join the investigation. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police witnesses. Although, it can be said that it was a chance recovery but the incident had occurred near a busy locality and therefore, it cannot be said that no public person would have been available at the spot and even if the prosecution has not joined the public witnesses it was incumbent upon the prosecution to at least put forward the reasons for not doing so.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next