Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa & Anr vs Fakir Charan Sethi (Dead Through Lrs) & ... on 9 October, 2014

State vs . Ram Charan on 29 August, 2016

12. Thereafter the prosecution's evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC in which the accused categorically denied the allegation and he stated that he had been State vs. Ram Charan, FIR no. 155/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 13 / 20 falsely implicated and that he inadvertently left vacant the column no.9 in OMR sheet no. 032591 and that recruitment cell took the benefit of the same. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Karan Sethi on 3 February, 2020

Guman Singh also handed over to him one pistol, one empty cartridge and the accused. That he prepared the sketch of the said pistol and magazine as well as the site plan of the place of occurrence and he further seized the case property, recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, arrested him, conducted his personal search and then got conducted the medical examination of accused from the RML Hospital. That he seized the blood sample of the accused as well as his original license in respect of the said pistol and sent the same to the FSL and department concerned, respectively. He identified the accused, the case property and the blood sample (Ex.P3) of the accused present State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Kawaliya @ Kali Charan on 10 November, 2025

4. A prima facie case under Sections 411/34 IPC, was found to be made out against State Vs. Kawaliya @ Kali Charan & Ors. FIR No. 306/2010 Page no. 2 of 13 accused namely Sameer @ Sonu. charge u/s 411/34 IPC was framed against the accused Sameer @ Sonu vide order dated 10.01.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention that proceedings against accused no 1 namely Kawaliya @ Kali Charan abated vide order dated 27.01.2016 and accused no. 2 Ramesh @ Sunny was declared absconder vide order dated 17.03.2016. Hence, charge against them could not be framed.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sachin Sethi on 7 April, 2025

9. So far as the allegations leveled against accused qua offence u/s 25 Arms Act are concerned, the mere perusal of testimony of prosecution witnesses would reflect that during the time when the alleged button actuated knife was recovered from accused, public persons might have been present at the spot. The mere perusal of site plan Ex. PW4/A also confirms that the spot of occurrence is surrounded by well populated area and hence, the public persons might have been present there. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of IO to join the public persons in the investigation of the case but surprisingly, no such person was associated in the investigation for the reasons unexplained. The testimony of PW-2 and PW 3 reflects that the team of police remained present at the spot for considerable time period but no sincere efforts appear to have been made by the IO to join the independent public persons in the investigation proceedings during such time. Surprisingly, PW-2 and PW-3 did not utter a single word regarding any sort of efforts made by them or IO to associate the public persons to witness the search and seizure proceedings. There is no justification given by the PW-2 and PW-3 as to why they did not join any public persons for witnessing the proceedings during which the knife was allegedly recovered from accused. Assumingly, the public persons who were present at the spot refused to join the investigation of the case but in such scenario also, both the above-named witnesses as well as IO were State Vs. Sachin Sethi FIR No : 161/05 U/s:25 Arms Act and Section 174A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 having remedies available in law to proceed against said public persons but such course has not been adopted by the IO for the reasons best known to him. Even the sample seal which was stated to be used by the IO in sealing the alleged button actuated knife, has not seen the light of the day. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to whom the seal of Mark "SSN" belonged. Neither PW-2 and PW-3 nor IO/ACP Sukhdev Meena have deposed anything regarding the handing over of seal to any of the independent witnesses after its use. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. Further, no handing over memo is on record to show the genuineness of fact of actual handing over of seal by IO to any of the independent witnesses. Assumingly, IO had handed over the seal to some independent person after its use, still there is no taking over memo on record to show as to when the seal was taken back by IO or if it remained with him forever. The contradictions in the versions of the above named PWs hints that the custody of sample seal was breached. In such a factual backdrop, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Kali Charan on 30 July, 2024

7. PW-3 SI Om Parkash has deposed that " On 25.03.2014, I was posted at DSIIDC Chowki, Bawana as HC. I received DD no. 16 PP and thereafter, I went to the spot i.e. Gol chakar, Lal flat Sector ­4 Bawana. I spot I met the Ct. Vishram and he handed­over to me the State Vs. Kali Charan FIR no. 280/2014 4 of 9 custody of the accused and case property. Thereafter, I checked the case property and found found 99 quarter bottles of Rasila Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only and 40 quarter bottles of besto whiskey for sale in AP only. I requested to four five public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused due to their persons reasons. I took out one quarter Bottle as sample each brand and tied the remaining bottle in the plastic katta with the white cloth and seal the said katta with the seal of OP. I also sealed the sample of the case property with the seal of OP. I also filled the form M­29 and prepared the seizure memo which is Ex. PW­1/B bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW­3/A bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Vishram. He went to the PS and after getting the registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed­over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to me. Thereafter, I arrested the accused person vide arresting memo Ex. PW­1/C bearing my signature at point B. I conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo already Ex. PW­1/D bearing my signature at point B. I prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW­3/B bearing my signature at point A. Accused is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. I can identify the case property if shown to me. The case property is already Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­4. Thereafter, we went to the PS and I submitted the case property to the Malkhkana. Later on I got transferred and file was handed­over to MHC R". Thereafter, PW-3 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kali Charan on 10 October, 2018

KAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2018.10.10 16:54:40 +0530 Announced in open court                           (Kapil Kumar)  on 10.10.2018                        MM­5/Central District            Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi  CIS No. 301937/16, State Vs. Kali Charan, FIR No. 27/09, PS. Kamla Market,  U/s. 279/304­A IPC           9/9
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next