Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (3.98 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Surender @ Sonu Punjabi & Ors. on 17 September, 2014

Fir No. 54/13 State vs . Sonu @ Monu Etc. 1 Of 401 on 6 August, 2016

1. Prosecution case: It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.02.2013, a DD no. 8A was received by PS New Usmanpur which was assigned to SI Arvind Kumar who along with Ct. Pushpender reached the spot of incident at main 40 foot road, F-Block Ganga Vihar, but no eye witness met there and it was revealed that injured had been removed to Hospital by PCR van. SI Arvind found one live cartridge and one empty cartridge case at main 40 feet road and blood was also lying there. SHO with staff also reached there who informed the Crime team. SI Arvind Kumar along with Ct. Pushpender reached GTB hospital and collected the MLCs of Brij FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 2 of 401 Pal, Sanjay and Santar Pal. Injured Santar Pal sustained fire arm injury but was fit for statement. MLC of Suresh was also collected. During interrogation, complainant Santar Pal disclosed that he was at his home, but suddenly accused namely Ashok, Omi, Kamal, Devender, Arun, Anuj, Sonu, Monu and along with other associates came to his house and accused Anuj and Omi @ Omkar had pistols and other persons were armed with lathies and dandas. It is further alleged that Anuj and Omi fired on him and one bullet hit in his right thigh and he also suffered injuries on his chin and finger in right hand. It is further alleged that all the above named accused persons caused injuries to all injured. SI Arvind prepared a rukka on the basis of statement of injured and also seized cartridges recovered from the spot and also prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, but blood earth control could not be collected due to sudden rain. All the accused persons were arrested and charge sheeted under Section 308/307/323/120B/201 IPC and 27 of Arms Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 28/2014 State vs . Sonu Etc Page No.1 Of 36 on 22 September, 2018

12. Statements   of   accused   persons   u/s   313   Cr.P.C   were recorded   wherein   both   the   accused   have   stated   that   they   are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Nem Chand has also stated that  on 12.01.2014 at about 7.30 a.m, he left his home for his labour work. When he reached Swaroop Nagar FIR No. 28/2014 State Vs. Sonu etc Page No.9 of 36 Highway and waiting for the bus, one vehicle stopped near him. 3­4 persons enquired him about his name and address. When he was unable to give his ID, then they forcibly took him in that vehicle and brought to police station. There they asked mobile number of any known. Thereafter, he gave them number of one of his neighbours Sunil who also lived nearby his rented residence. Sunil reached at the PS alongwith his driving licence. Police officials sent him back after taking his driving licence by saying that he will be left after enquiry.   Thereafter,   they   forced   him   to   sign   some   blank   papers. When   he   refused   to   do   the   same,   then   they   gave   him   merciless beatings and forcibly took his signatures on blank papers. He kept on saying that he does not know that auto driver. Further, he does not have any concern with the alleged recovery. Even he did   not make any disclosure statement to the police.   At that time, he was not   using   any   mobile   phone.   The   police   officials   have   falsely implicated him in this false case.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No: 440987/16 State vs . Sonu & Ors on 16 December, 2022

When I woke up at about 7 am, Bhanupratap told me that "at about 3 am, I woke up to the sound of the door of the room. I saw that the light of our room was on and Ayub was leaving the room. I called Ayub contractor and he ran out of the room. I also ran after him but Ayub leaving his shawl in our room, one shoe outside our room and one near boundary, jumped over the wall and ran away and at this time also he saw that the street light was also on. He told that I knocked on the door of his room on which Ayub's wife told that Ayub was with you since yesterday evening and after that I went to sleep in my room". Then around 7.00 am I woke up my brother and other people living in the room and saw that my brother Upendra Muski's throat was slit and blood was oozing. On checking, my brother Upendra Muski was found dead. On my raising alarm people gathered and someone called police. You came on the spot and recorded my above statement . I Judgment 5 of 58 SC No: 440987/16 State Vs. Sonu & Ors suspect that Ayub contractor s/o Nandu killed my brother having enmity with my brother Upendra @ Muski....
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1. Sonu @ Soaib on 24 November, 2022

36. The defence as taken by the accused persons in their respective statement recorded under section 313 of the Code does not inspire confidence and appears to be after thought. The statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code is in conflict with the version in testimony of defence witnesses produced by the accused persons. The SC No. 44/17 State vs. Sonu & Ors FIR No. 814/14 Page No. 19 of 22 defence witnesses have deposed that all the three accused persons were not available at the spot on the day of the incident. But, the brother of complainant Bhanupriya namely Shamsher had caused injury to her with a Tawa. She said defence has been produced by the accused persons for the first time through the testimony of defence witnesses, therefore same is doubtful. Most importantly, the defence as taken by the accused persons was not put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross examination. Moreover, the accused persons have not stated the aforesaid facts as deposed by defence witnesses in their testimony.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1. Sonu (On Bail) on 21 January, 2015

I called the police from a nearby shop.....It is wrong to suggest that accused Kamla gave information to the police regarding the quarrel and she informed that a quarrel has taken place at jhuggi no. 319. Accused Mithlesh was not having any injury.....We remained at the hospital till morning on the next day. The police officials of the concerned PS met us in the hospital. We reached the PS from the hospital at about 8.00 p.m. We reached our house at FIR No. 234/09 State Vs. Sonu & Ors Page No. 13 of 20 about 2.30 p.m. We waited at the PS for about two hours, for the police to take action against the accused. But, they had not taken any action and therefore, I approached the DCP office.....I had not seen accused Kamla and Mithlesh, during the time, I remained at the GTB Hospital....."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sonu And Anr.//Fir No.134/13//Ps - ... on 16 November, 2019

5. As PW7, the prosecutrix could not recollect the date and month when she was raped by accused Sonu in his house where she had gone to meet his sister Madhu. She also could not recollect the date of marriage of Ruby but it was in June which was held in a village of Meerut and was attended by her also and she had stayed there for about 5/6 days. She deposed that she had filed complaint Ex.PW7/A under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which was sent to the police for registration and investigation in the case. Both accused persons were summoned in the police station and the matter was compromised as Sonu has promised to marry her. But later, he again refused saying that she should do whatever State vs Sonu and Anr.//FIR No.134/13//PS - Adarsh Nagar//SC No.58228/16. PAGE 3 OF 18 she liked. She next deposed that her medical examination was conducted in BJRM Hospital and statement Ex.PW7/B was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Accused Sonu was arrested from his house on 03.05.2013 at her instance. Next day, his sister Madhu was also arrested at her instance from her house.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 21 February, 2018

Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI) on 21.2.2018 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI. State vs. Sonu etc. (FIR no. 497/15 PS Subhash Place)                                                                         17 of 17
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 46/2017; Ps Amar Colony ; State vs . Sonu 1 Of 14 on 4 May, 2019

3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined four (04) witness during trial:­ PW­1 complainant/victim deposed that on 30.01.2017, at around 10.00 PM while she was coming back from her office situated at Patel Nagar and reached in front of her house. Suddenly, accused Sonu came from behind and caught hold her hand and started misbehaving with her by using filthy language. She shouted for help and called her brother namely Deepak and her father Sh.Dharambir by calling them who were inside the house. Upon calling for help, her brother and father came out from the house and apprehended the accused Sonu from his house as accused ran away while she FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 2 of 14 was shouting for help and calling to her brother and father. Thereafter, accused Sonu was taken to the police chowki Sriniwaspuri by her father and brother. She also accompanied them to the police chowki. When accused caught hold her hand at the spot, he was saying that "chut de do". She had given her written complaint to the police which was Ex.PW­1/A. She had given her statement u/s 164 CrPC before the Magistrate. Thereafter, statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC of witness was shown to the her to which she identified her signature at point A and B which was Ex.PW­1/B. During cross examination complainant deposed that she was working as a beautician. House of accused was situated back to her house. She had no friendly relation with accused prior to the present incident and not thereafter. While she was shouting for help, accused started to run away and she tried to apprehend him by holding his wearing jacket but he succeeded to run away. Upon her shouting, only her father and brother came there and no neighbour came there at that time.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next