Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 330 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006

State vs . (1) Dinesh Sharma on 25 April, 2016

FIR No. 96/11 State vs. Dinesh Sharma Etc. 28 of 77 -: 29 :- (53) " I had told the whole incident whatever happened to the police. Police had made inquiries from me only once in the hospital and only one policeman had made inquiries. I was alone at that time. I cannot say how much time I talked to the police official. That police official was writing my statement simultaneously. I was made to sign only once by the police official. My statement was recorded in the morning of 02.04.2011 by the police. I had told the same entire incident to the Magistrate also. I know the difference between scarf, shawl and cloth. I had told my father that I had narrated the whole incident to police. I was not tutored by my father to give the statement in addition what I had already stated to the police. I was not tutored by my father or by the police to give the statement before the Magistrate".
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Dinesh Kumar Fir ... on 26 March, 2013

1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.12.2011, Duty Ct. Dalbir from SGM Hospital informed to the duty officer of PS Sultanpuri that, Smt. Hunny w/o. Dinesh Kumar was admitted in the SGM Hospital in burn condition and accordingly DD No.59A was recorded and which was assigned to SI Dayanand Yadav SI reached at the hospital and collected MLC of the injured State vs Dinesh Kumar FIR No.14/12//PS­SULTANPURI//U/S.302 IPC page 1 of page 27 2 Hunny. He recorded statement of the Hunny, she stated that, 'she had burnt accidentally by kerosene stove. Later on Injured Hunny was shifted to RML hospital. On 02.01.2012 injured Hunny gave another statement that, 'she poured kerosene oil on herself and set her ablaze in anger as she had quarreled with her husband'. SI informed to the SHO and SHO directed him to inform the SDM as victim was changing her statement, therefore, SDM was informed on 09.01.2012 and he recorded statement of victim and in her statement she had stated that, "her husband had poured kerosene oil on her on 22.12.2011 and at that time and since her removed her shawl and poured kerosene oil on her suit, which she was wearing and thereafter her husband ablaze her suit, which she was wearing and when she shouted neighbourer came and thereafter on seeing her, neighbourer tried to save her. On the way he threatened her if she discloses the truth then he will give her mother and ran away with her child, therefore, she did not give truthful statement earlier".
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Dinesh Kumar on 19 March, 2018

12.The entire case of the prosecution is pivoted on the complaint and the deposition of Constable Karamvir Ex. PW­7/A as per which the FIR NO.445/2009, PS­ Anand Vihar    Page 7/12                                   STATE VS. DINESH KUMAR complainant was not only the eye witness of the accident in which the injured Sanjay Raj expired, but Constable Karamvir had also seen the manner in which the accident had happened but also saw that the offending vehicle was being driven as high speed and in rash   and   negligent   manner.   But   when   Constable   Karamvir   was examined as PW­7, he did not support the case of the prosecution at all. In examination­in­chief PW­7 deposed, "...When I reached at the spot present incident had already occurred and I came to know through the public persons that present incident occurred. It was not cleared through the said public persons as to whether motorcyclist who sustained injury in the present incident slipped on his own due to said small stones or he fell down due to the rubbing   of   said   truck.   I   do   not   remember   the   complete registration number of said motorcycle, however, number of said motorcycle might be 7170. I made a call at 100 number. Some time later HC Pushpeshnder from the PS reached at the spot and prior to his arrival at the spot, PCR had taken injured to hospital. 10   recorded   my   statement   which   is   Ex.PW7/A   bearing   my signature at point A. 10 prepared the site plan at my instance... When I reached at the spot, accused driver was present there and his name came to me known as Dinesh.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Dinesh Kumar on 4 July, 2024

Thus, there is no testimony of eye witness on the record who had seen the accident happening. IO had not even interrogated them during investigation. Thus, in the absence of any specific averments, it cannot be proved that accused had caused the accident by driving offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner. The sole testimony of complainant is not sufficient to establish any State Vs. Dinesh Kumar FIR No. : 197/2018 PS Hauz Khas U/s 279/338 IPC Page no.9 of 10 rashness or negligence.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next