Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.63 seconds)

Fir No. 61/2013 State vs . Waseem Akram Butt; Ps Defence Colony 1 ... on 15 January, 2019

She did not remember the date FIR No. 61/2013 State Vs. Waseem Akram Butt; PS Defence Colony 8 of 28 or year in which she came to know that accused had performed aforesaid Nikah by cheating her. She did not remember the date, year or month in which she finally stopped living with the accused. She did not remember the exact date, month or year in which accused allured her by saying that he wishes to settle the matter filed against him by her u/s 376 IPC. She could not tell the exact date but on several occasions, she had insisted the accused to take her to his house and give reception of the Nikah, allegedly performed by him with her but he never showed his intention to take her to his house. She used to always asked the accused to take her to his house and give reception if he believed that she was his wife. It was correct that her parents had never visited the house of the accused at Srinagar. She had not filed any complaint against the accused where he used to harass her and forced her to compromise the matter with him. She did not remember if she had spoken to the accused on the date of incident that is 08.05.2013 before the incident. She did not remember if she had told during recording of her statement U/s 164 CrPC that she was slapped by the accused on her face. She did not remember if she had stated during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC that the accused had tried to sexually harass her on the date of incident. Witness was confronted with her statement Ex.PW­2/E wherein the aforesaid fact was not mentioned. She did not remember if she had stated during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC that the accused had threatened her to post her nude pictures on the internet.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Waseem on 20 January, 2024

".......Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an Accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be Page 11 of 12 Cr. Case No. 9739/2023 FIR No. 558/2023 State v. Waseem given to the Accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

3.Title State vs . Waseem on 12 May, 2023

7. Hence, in view of the above, accused Waseem S/o Salim is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 379/411 IPC as the State fails to establish that identity of the accused as well as the original incident since State failed to secure the presence of complainant. His surety is hereby discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, stands cancelled. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules. RUPINDER Digitally signed by RUPINDER SINGH SINGH DHIMAN Date: 2023.05.12 DHIMAN 15:14:13 +0530 Announced in the (RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN) Open Court on 12.05.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate-01 KKD Courts, Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains three (3) pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed RUPINDER by RUPINDER SINGH SINGH DHIMAN Date: 2023.05.12 DHIMAN 15:14:20 +0530 (RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN) Metropolitan Magistrate-01 NE/KKD Courts, Delhi 12.05.2023 State Vs. Waseem Page 3 of 3 FIR No. : 000299/21
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next