Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Bijay vs The State (G.N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 July, 2011

State vs . Rajender @ Ritwa on 22 June, 2012

"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case." PW1 Ct. Bharam Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to him . It is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW1. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Court held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were intact and not tempered with.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sanjay Kumar@ Sanjay Shokeen on 6 December, 2012

PW Ct. Subhash, HC Rajender and ASI Rajbir deposed that the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Anil who has not been examined by the prosecution. It is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to Ct. Anil. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ved Prakash on 10 October, 2011

"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case." As per the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses the seal after use was handed over to PW2 Ct. Raj Kumar. It is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to him especially when the public witnesses were present near the spot. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were intact and not tempered with". Hence, in my considered opinion, when the seal was kept by one of the members of the raiding party, therefore, there was every opportunity for the prosecution to misuse the seal to temper with the case property. In view of the propositions of the law laid down FIR No. 761/1996 STATE V/s VED PRAKASH PAGE No.23/25 by the aforesaid judgments, I am not inclined to believe the evidence led by the prosecution in this regard as the same is not believable.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Som Dutt@ Som on 1 May, 2012

PW3 Retd. SI Kanwar Pal Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW4 Ct. Harish who also corroborated the version of the PW5. However, it is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when as per the case of the prosecution the independent public persons were present at the spot. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Yogesh Chaudhary on 1 February, 2012

"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case." PW3 Retd. SI Surat Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW5 Ct. Hari Om who also corroborated the version of the PW3. It is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when the complainant Jai Narain was also present there. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Court held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he State Vs. Yogesh Choudhary 13/15 FIR no. 41/05 kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were intact and not tempered with.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shiv Shakti on 26 November, 2011

While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Court held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were intact and not tempered with.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ramesh on 1 December, 2012

FIR No. 174/2004 STATE V/s RAMESH KUMAR PAGE No.9/12 PW1 IO Ranbir Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW7 Ct. Satender. However, it is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW7 especially when as per the case of the prosecution the independent public persons were present at the spot. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rakesh Kumar on 24 August, 2011

"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case." PW3 Retd. SI Surat Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW5 Ct. Hari Om who also corroborated the version of the PW3. It is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when the complainant Jai Narain was also present there. While relying FIR No.456/1997 STATE V/s RAKESH KUMAR PAGE No.28/30 upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were intact and not tempered with.
Delhi District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rahil on 23 August, 2012

PW3 SI Ranbir Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW5 Ct. Sushil Kumar who also corroborated the version of the PW3. However, it is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when as per the case of the prosecution the independent public persons were present at the spot which has been deposed by IO SI Ranbir Singh. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Neeraj Behwal & Ors on 24 February, 2021

In the case of Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, also Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also observed the same. Reverting to the facts of the case and the evidence led in this regard the same would show that none of the prosecution witness testified that the CFSL Form was also prepared at the spot nor has been proved on the record. As held in the aforesaid judgments, I opine that the non−sending the FSL form to the FSL alongwith the State vs Neeraj Behwal & Ors. FIR No. 475/15 Page 15 of 17 samples and not proving the same on the record renders the case of the prosecution doubtful and, I am not inclined to rely upon the same so as to convict the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next