Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Pardeep @ Sonu vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 25 March, 2011

State vs . 1. Anwar on 22 April, 2014

A. 464/11 (DHC) decided on 26/03/2013; 'State Vs. Lalita' CRL.L.P. 501/2013 (DHC) decided on 16/09/2013; 'Ali Sher @ Raju Vs. The State' Manu/DE/0520/2011; 'State Vs. Rahul' 2011(2) JCC701; 'Abass Ahmad Chaudhary Vs. State of Assam' 2010 CRLJ2060 (SC); 'Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and another' 2006(10)SCC92; 'Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of MP' AIR2010SC1540; 'Raghunath Vs. State of NCT' Manu/DE/1127/2004; 'Pradeep @ Sonu Vs. State (Delhi)' 2011 (2)JCC1031; 'Krishan Kumar Mallik Vs. State of Haryana' Manu/ 156 of 161 157 FIR No. 1408/07 PS - Sultan Puri SC/0718/2011; 'Sumit Gupta Vs. State (Delhi)' Manu/DE/3699/2009; 'Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana' 2005(2) RCR 817; 'Vinay Krishna Vs. State of Rajasthan' 2004 (1) RCR 565; 'Radhu Vs. State of MP' JT 2007(11) SC 91.
Delhi District Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan on 5 April, 2011

45. The case of the prosecution throughout has been that the prosecutrix was induced and enticed by the accused and taken away by him on the pretext of giving her ice-cream and site seeing and it was under these circumstances she was lured by him. I may observe that the prosecutrix was totally illiterate who was not knowing Hindi at the time of incident as she had come from Nepal just two months prior to the incident and was having language problem. Therefore, keeping in view the statement of the prosecutrix that she had been induced by the accused to accompany him, I hold that the principals laid down in the cases of "Sonu Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi' and "Kulwant Singh Vs. State, (Supra) would not be applicable in so far as the aspect of Section 363 Indian Penal Code is concerned.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Accused on 27 September, 2012

He further admitted that he did not see the accused persons, present in the court, on the spot, on that date firing on him. Thus, the testimony of PW1 complainant is inconsistent and self contradictory. Therefore, it is highly unsafe to act upon the testimony of such unreliable and untrustworthy witness. Thus, SC No.52/10 State Vs. Vikram @ Vicky & Ors. Page 7 of 11 the principles of law laid down in case Pardeep @ Sonu v. State, (supra), will not provide any benefit to the prosecution.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Accused on 14 September, 2012

35. Consequent upon the above discussion, reasons and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in above, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Rajender Singh Rautela beyond any reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt that either he committed rape on prosecutrix or he cheated her and obtained alleged money from her or he made obscene SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 19 of 20 gestures to her. The principles of law laid down in case Pardeep @ Sonu v. State, (supra), will not provide any benefit to prosecution as statement of prosecutrix is inconsistent, unreliable and improbable. Therefore, accused is entitled for getting benefit of doubt. Accordingly, by giving him benefit of doubt, accused is acquitted for the offence of rape punishable under section u/s 376 IPC and offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property punishable u/s 420 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Accused on 23 February, 2013

26. The principles of law laid down in case of Uday v. State of Karnataka, (supra), and In re, Anthony alias Bakthavatsalu (supra), Sonu v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra), Manish Singh v. State Govt. of NCT & Ors., (supra), Sagar Kumar v. State of Haryana, (supra), Kuldeep Kumar Mehto v. State of Bihar, (supra), and K.P. Thimmappa SC No.30/13 State vs. Deepak Singh Page 14 of 17 Gowda v. State of Karnata, (supra), are applicable on the facts of the present case and therefore, it is held that the prosecution could not prove lack of consent of the prosecutrix or that accused abducted her or made physical relations with her without her consent.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Accused on 14 December, 2011

37. On applying the principles, laid down in case Pardeep @ Sonu v. State, (supra), and considering the material contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix and in his complaint Ex.PW1/A, I am of the view that it would not be safe to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when her testimony has been found inconsistent through out and there are contradictions on many points and further that her own friend Monika who examined herself as DW1 deposed in contradiction to the testimony of prosecutrix. She inter alia stated as DW1 that on 02.09.2008 at about 9:50 pm, prosecutrix came to her house and asked her to accompany her for going to Chandni Chowk for purchase of a pair of sandle. Thereafter, they hired an auto rikshaw for going to Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar and she disclosed to her that she wanted to marry Suresh. On reaching the temple she found Suresh, Deepak and other persons there and thereafter, saptpadi steps were taken in between Sarita prosecutrix and Suresh and thereafter, they went to Tis Hazari where Sarita and Suresh put their SC No. 19/09 State Vs. Suresh @ Sahil etc. Page 20 of 25 signatures on some papers and thereafter, Suresh dropped the prosecutrix and her at tonga stand, Jhilmil. Mother of prosecutrix who examined herself as PW7 admittedly did not see the occurrence and she deposed on the basis whatever was told to her by prosecutrix. Thus argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is convincing on this aspect that testimony of prosecutrix has not been corroborated by any independent witness.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next