Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar vs Rajni Ranjan on 12 October, 1993

State vs Rajni on 18 December, 2024

After sometime Ct. Shiv Kumar came on the spot and handed over original rukka alongwith copy of FIR to him. I prepared site plan, which is already Ex.PW1/B, bearing her signature at point C. I recorded disclosure statement of accused vide disclosure memo, which is already Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. I served notice u/s 41A to accused and released her on bail. I alongwith FIR No. 438/2020 State vs. Rajni 5 of 12 police staff having case property came to PS where he deposited case property in malkhana. He recorded statement of witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rajni on 12 September, 2025

17. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery. Further, PW-3 had stated in his examination in chief that he requested the public persons to join the investigation however, they refused to join the investigation. He further added that due to paucity of time, no FIR No. 172/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Rajni 6/9 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.09.12 04:15:11 +0530 notice was given to the said persons. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the police officials had tried to serve any notice under Section 160 Cr. PC. upon the persons who refused to join the investigation or had taken any pains to join them in inquiry. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by police official to join public witnesses in the proceedings. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr. PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

14. It Has Been Held In Case Of "Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime on 25 September, 2014

6. PW-2 ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 15.01.2005 he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar. On that day he was on patrolling duty. At about 07:15 PM, when he was present at Camp No.4 Red Light, Jawala Puri, he saw that one lady having a plastic cane in her hand was coming from Nangloi side. On seeing the witness, she turned back and started walking. On being suspicious, he State v. Rajni U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act 2/10 FIR No. 40/2005 PS Paschim Vihar apprehended the accused. On checking the said cane, smell of liquor came out. Thereafter, he informed PP Mianwali from where HC Ashok Kumar came at the spot. He handed over the accused and case property to him. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. IO asked 3/4 passersby to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He brought one empty bottle, one bucket and one plastic mug from a nearby tea shop. IO measured the quantity of liquor which was 10 bottles. One bottle was taken out for sample purpose and remaining were poured back in the said cane. The sample bottle as well as the plastic cane were sealed with the seal of 'AK'. Form M-29 was filled up by the IO and seal was handed over to the witness after use. IO took the possession of case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, IO prepared the rukka and sent the witness to PS for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he returned back at the spot and handed over original rukka and carbon copy of FIR to the IO. IO prepared the site plan at his instance. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C. The accused was released on bail at the spot. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. Witness identified the accused and the case property in the court. The cane is Ex.P1. It was observed by the court that the seal of the cane was broken and cane was totally empty.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajni on 17 December, 2012

" The relevant aspect to be noted is that the road on which the accident took place is a busy road. Site plan Ex. PW6/B does not indicate that the ladies were crossing the road from a place earmarked for the pedestrians to cross the road or that there was any zebra crossing. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­. For attracting the provisions of Section 304­A, IPC the negligent act of the accused must be culpable and gross and not merely based on an error of judgment, or the one which arises because of lack of intelligence. For holding an accused criminally liable one has to take into consideration all the attending circumstances which must also include any situation created by the negligent act of the injured person. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. There are no skid marks on the road to show that the FIR No. 341/05 Page 7 of 9 State vs. Rajni vehicle was being driven at a high speed. Thus, in view of circumstances of the present case it cannot be held that the accused was grossly negligent or reckless that he must be held criminally liable. The prosecution in the present case has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Petitioner."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajni on 8 April, 2015

12. The next defence is that the public witnesses are not joined in the investigation. From the overall testimony of the witness, it appears that no effort, what to talk of a sincere/vague effort has been made to join the public persons in the investigation. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police witnesses. Not even a single public witness has been examined by the prosecution nor joined in the investigation and no reason has been put forward by the prosecution witnesses that for what reason they are unable to gather support from public or independent witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. Although, it can be said that it was a chance recovery but the State Vs. Rajni 4/7 FIR no. 277/07 incident had occurred from in 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 associated the public witnesses, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to at least put forward the reasons for not doing so. The failure on the part of the police personnels goes to suggest that they were not interested in joining the public persons in the police proceedings. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story in view of the following case law.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajni on 14 March, 2013

In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were State Vs. Rajni 6/8 FIR no.113/10 available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next