Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 144 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Karan Singh Binayak & Ors on 20 March, 2002

State vs Karan on 22 December, 2025

28. The absence of public witnesses during the recovery of a weapon does not automatically invalidate the recovery or the testimony of police witnesses. While ideally, independent public witnesses should be present, their non- joining isn't fatal to the prosecution's case, especially if the police witnesses' testimony is credible and inspires confidence. Courts often scrutinize the evidence of police witnesses closely, but their testimony isn't automatically rejected simply because they are police officers. If the testimony of police officers can be corroborated by other evidence or circumstances, it strengthens the prosecution's case. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 17 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:05 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Karan on 28 January, 2019

Brief Facts of the Case The brief facts of the case are that complainant Sh. Raj Kumar is a rickshaw puller in the area of Gole Market and resides in a park, near Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi. On 31.12.2013, he ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Karan FIR No. 276/13, PS: Mandir Marg Page 1 of 26 reported that at around 10:30 PM, he was taking meals in the park when a boy came over there and started abusing him. Thereafter, he pointed out a knife at him and asked him to take out whatever money he was having and hand over the same to him. Thereafter, the said boy took out seven notes of rupees hundred each from front pocket of his shirt. He raised hue and cry and police arrived over there and apprehended the said boy. The identity of the said boy came to be known as Karan son of Satbir, resident of Jhuggi No. C­33/01, G Point, Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi. In the meanwhile, somebody also informed the police by dialing 100 and thereafter investigating officer (IO) reached over there and the said boy was handed over to him for necessary action. These facts led to the registration of the instant case.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Karan Singh Etc. on 29 March, 2011

State Vs. Karan Singh etc. PW1 stated that he was not able to identify the kulhari, the weapon of offence, which was hit on his head. In his previous statement Ex PW1/A, there is mention that when Gyan Chand had given blow by kulhari towards his head, PW1 had held the kulhari, meaning thereby it had not struck the head of PW1. PW1 also denied that Gyan Chand took iron rod from somebody and hit on the left and right shoulder, left hand of Sukhpal. PW1 was unable to say whether he had stated of Karan Singh having saria in his hand hit Vijender on his left hand or head or that Satwant hit with iron saria on head, left hand and left leg of Brahm Prakash. PW1 denied of having told the police that Babu Ram had hit on the right and left hand, left thigh of Prem Singh with saria or Satwant having hit saria on the leg or that juvenile Surender hit lathi on right hand of Bijender. PW1 denied of having stated to police that PW7 Lekh Raj and PW3 Mahipal were witnesses of the incident or that they were removed to AIIMS hospital by police.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Karan on 21 September, 2024

In his cross examination PW 1 affirmed that he did not join any independent public person in the investigation or cited them as witness or that he did not place on record all relevant DD Entries pertaining to the present case or that he had not enquired about the source of illicit liquor or FIR No.: 390/2018 State versus Karan Page No. 3 of 14 that he had not prepared handing over memo of seal. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that case property were planted upon the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Karan on 6 March, 2025

"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the Accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the State vs. Karan FIR No.130/24 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Shahdara Pages 8 of 13 light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Karan Singh on 30 October, 2025

2025.10.30 15:42:57 +0530 STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH witness and had apprehended the accused. He was also subsequently a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness and it remained in the possession of police officials of the same PS. Therefore seal was well within the reach of the IO. Hence, the possibility of tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, alleged recovered bottles of liquor were not bearing any specific marks to show that the said case property was recovered from the possession of the accused. Since the seal remained in the possession of police officials, hence the particulars of the case property mentioned on the katta could have been written anytime and thus there is every possibility of tampering and manipulation.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Karan on 9 October, 2023

2. Consequently, FIR No. 243/2021 PS Prasad Nagar under Section 392/397/411 IPC was registered. The investigation was accordingly carried out against accused Karan. At the instance of complainant, site plan was prepared. On 15.07.2021, accused Karan was apprehended in case FIR no. 244/2021, u/s 392/397/34 IPC, PS Prasad Nagar and he made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case. During investigation, Rs.9000/- and driving licence of complainant were recovered from his possession. On 30.07.2021, TIP of accused SC No. 548/2021 FIR NO. 243/2021 State Vs Karan Pages 11/11 was got conducted in which he was identified by the complainant.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Karan on 31 July, 2025

1) The date of commission of offence : 11.10.2022 2) The name of the complainant : HC Narender 3) The name & parentage of accused : Karan S/o Jeet Lal, R/o T-1078, Mangolpuri, Delhi 4) Offence complained of : U/s. 25 of Arms Act 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 6) Final order : Acquitted 7) The date of such order : 31.07.2025 8) Ld. LADC for accused : Ms. Reena Yadav and Ms. Twinkle Parmar Date of Institution : 09.12.2022 Judgment reserved on : 31.07.2025 Judgment announced on : 31.07.2025 FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.1 JUDGMENT 1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 11.10.2022 at about
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next