Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Ashu Bansal & Anr. on 16 January, 2009

State vs . 1. Himanshu @ Ashu S/O Late Sh. Arun on 16 September, 2013

State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 16/36 R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu, this witness stated that he had not prepared site plan of place of recovery of knife and he had not put any identification mark on recovered knife and he had also not lifted finger print from there and he had not obtained the signature of family members of accused or neighbours on seizure of knife. This witness had denied to the suggestion that no recovery of knife has been effected at the instance of accused Himanshu @ Ashu or that knife has been planted upon him. This witness admits that doctor by giving subsequent opinion refused to give any opinion on knife that knife produced before him has been used in commission of crime. This witness had denied to the suggestion that case was blind or that he had investigated the case just to work out or that he has not conducted fair and proper investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashu on 22 October, 2024

31.PW-2 was cross-examined by the prosecution since he turned hostile and he admitted to know the accused prior to date of incident and also that on the said date, accused Ashu met him at the spot and they had conversation. He even admitted that Ashu told him to convey to Bunty not to give statement against him in another case. However, he denied the suggestion of the prosecution that present accused Ashu extended threat to kill Bunty if he gives evidence against him in the Court. He failed to depose that accused Ashu was the one who caused stabbed injury on his neck by the knife and that he is deliberately concealing the same. Though he admitted that after the incident, accused Ashu ran away from the spot. During his cross-examination by defence, in answer to Court's question, PW-2 stated that accused was present at the spot with him till he was not injured. He even deposed that while he was talking to accused Ashu, somebody had hit him with knife from behind, which clearly means that someone else than accused Ashu had caused injury to the SC No. 707/2021 Page 20 of 23 State v. Ashu complainant/PW-2.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashu on 12 February, 2024

9. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 18.12.2023 wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused was put to him but he denied the same and stated that FIR No.: 478/2019 State v. Ashu Page no. 6/15 nothing was recovered from his possession and he was falsely implicated in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Imran @ Ashu on 30 April, 2025

During his cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused, stated that he reached at the spot of incident at about 4:40 PM on 20.02.2024. He further stated that he did not serve any notice to State vs. Imran @ Ashu FIR No.94/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Vivek Vihar Pages 7 of 13 any public persons/passersby in order to join the investigation as none had agreed to join the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He denied the suggestions that he did not serve the notice to any public person as he never visited the spot of incident at any point of time or that he prepared all the documents while sitting in the PS. He admitted that he had arrested the accused or that there was no cctv camera installed at or near the place of incident. He denied the suggestions that he along with HC Sumit and HC Amit falsely implanted the case property upon the accused due to previous involvement of accused in different matters and falsely implicated accused in the present matter or that he did not conduct proper and fair investigation in the present matter.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ashu @Vinod on 7 November, 2012

23. PW­1 Ct. Balvinder has stated in his cross­examination, "We requested public persons but none of them stopped.....I was not present at the spot and Ct. Sheikh Riyaz not went to PS for registration of FIR in my presence....I do not know what documents were prepared by the IO in the present case and I signed the same on the instructions of the IO.....My statement was recorded by the IO in this case on FIR no.135/12 State vs. Ashu & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kuldeep @ Ashu 1 Fir No. 899/06 on 25 May, 2011

29. Section 319 IPC, defines the term hurt. Under section 319 IPC whoever causes bodily pan, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 324 provides for causing hurt by sharp edged weapons including causing hurt by other instruments. Surgical blade is a sharp edged weapon and therefore, it is proved that the accused has committed offence u/s 324 IPC. As far as offence u/s 506 IPC is State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 10 FIR no. 899/06 concerned, there is no evidence on record that the accused intimidated the injured. The accused is acquitted of charge u/s 506 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashu on 11 December, 2025

4) Offence complained of : U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 6) Final order : Acquittal 7) The date of such order : 11.12.2025 Date of Institution : 21.09.2023 Final Arguments heard on : 11.12.2025 Judgment reserved on : 11.12.2025 Judgment announced on : 11.12.2025 State Vs. Ashu FIR No. 89/23 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1/9 JUDGMENT 1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 21.01.2023 at
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashu on 25 November, 2025

6.In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, the prosecution can never hope to prove the State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 3 of 8 allegations levelled against the accused. Remaining witnesses in the present case are official witnesses, whose testimonies even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next