Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 229 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Mohammed Ayub Naz on 3 January, 2006

S.C. No. 53/10 Fir No. 498/09 State vs . Mohd. Ayub @ Munna & Anr. 1 /21 on 4 March, 2013

4.2 PW-2 Anand Prashad stated that about one year ago at about 11:00/12:00 noon, he saw one lady and one boy beating an old man with stones and bricks; when the old man became unconscious, he called police at 100 number from his mobile phone; police came there and took the injured to the hospital but he did not identify both the accused persons to be the persons, who had beaten that old man. The witness was cross-examined by the S.C. No. 53/10 FIR No. 498/09 State vs. Mohd. Ayub @ Munna & Anr. 4 /21 Ld. Addl. PP on the point of date of incident and on the identity of the accused persons to which he admitted that incident had taken place on 19.10.2009 but he refused to identify the accused persons to be the persons, who had beaten the old man.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mohd. Niyaz Ahmed @ Kalu on 27 August, 2011

13. PW9 ASI Bua Lal deposed that he was handed over the investigation on 13.04.2010 and had during the course of investigation recorded the statement of Ct. Babu Lal and Anant Singh at his house and thereafter, State Vs. Mohd. Niaz etc., SC No. 79/10( pg- 6 ) tried to search the accused but could not find him on that day and further handed over the investigation to HC Praveen Kumar. In cross examination deposed that he do not remember to whom he inquired about the accused. PW11 Ct. Surender Kumar deposited three sealed parcels at FSL on 27.08.2010. PW12 HC Ram Dev Singh recorded the DD no. 25A on the night of 12/13.07.2010 on receipt of information from duty constable Surender from Safdarjung Hospital.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Murti Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 23 May, 2018

50. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that during the course of trial of Criminal Case No. 4670 of 2005, State Vs. Mohd. Ayub, only two witnesses of fact, Shri Abdul Rub, P.W.1, power of attorney of complainant Smt. Ishrat Parveen and P.W.2, Smt. Ishrat Parveen were examined and they were declared hostile by the Prosecuting Officer and the petitioner, after considering the evidence available on record had discharged his judicial functions and acquitted the accused Mohd. Ayub, as evidence was deficient against him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - D K Arora - Full Document

Criminal Case/92/2011 on 2 February, 2013

7. As the complainant/eye witness/injured Mohd. Imran has turned hostile, denying the entire prosecution story and has been cross examined by the Ld. APP, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, State v. Mohd. Ayub & Ors. U/s 326 /341/34 IPC FIR No. 101/11 , PS Jamia Nagar 4 and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. Thus, the PE was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded wherein the accused persons pleaded innocence. However, the accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Md. Ayyub on 18 February, 2015

7. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons in the deposition of the public witnesses examined by the prosecution. The rest of the witnesses cited by prosecution are of formal in nature. Thus, no useful purpose would be served to FIR No.1380/14, SC No. 13/15 Page 3/4 State vs Md. Ayyub etc. examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses and it would be sheer wastage of the precious time of the court. Hence, the prosecution evidence is hereby closed and the request of Ld. Addl. P.P for examining rest of the witnesses is hereby declined as in the absence of support of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution would never be in a position to prove its case against the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yousuf Ashique Ali Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 5 February, 2024

"(I). To issue a writ. order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the public interest, commanding the respondents no 4 to comply his own order order dated 17.10.2022 passed in case no 4276/2022 (State versus Abdul Bahab), Case no 4278/2022 (State versus Tafseer Ahmad), case no 4278/2022 (State versus Abdul Mobin), case no 4280/2022 (State versus Shakeel Ahmad) and order dated 27.12.2022 passed in case no Case no 4277/2022 (State versus Mohd Ayub).
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next