Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Mohd. Jahangir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2011

Bhuptej Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2013

In Jahangir's case (supra), this Court held that during the proceedings of recovery of a country made pistol with cartridges, no witness from the public was joined and nor the Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.06 10:35 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1633-SB-2002 (O&M) 9 recovered articles were sealed in a parcel, therefore, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - N K Sanghi - Full Document

State vs (1)Sonu @ Jahid on 27 September, 2012

24 I have gone through the judgment in case of Jahangir Vs. State of Haryana 1996 (2) RCR (Criminal) 433 in which it has been held that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 13 of 28 always rests on the prosecution. Strongest of suspicion does not constitute the proof required.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Monu on 9 April, 2014

22 Non­recovery of alleged robbed mobile phone also creates doubt about the case of prosecution. In the entire charge­ sheet, there is not even a whisper of word to the effect that any effort SC No.19/2013 State Vs. Monu Page 12 of 18 was made by the investigating officer to get recovered the alleged robbed mobile phone. In his statement before the court also, investigating officer (PW8) has also not stated anything to the effect that he made any effort to get the robbed mobile phone recovered. 23 I have gone through the judgment in case of Jahangir Vs. State of Haryana 1996 (2) RCR (Criminal) 433 in which it has been held that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. Strongest of suspicion does not constitute the proof required.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pradeep Malik 1 Challan No. ... on 8 September, 2015

e) No Public Witness Counsel for the accused has further argued that as no public witness was made to the challan, hence the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. Counsel for accused has filed before the court a judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court titled as Jahangir & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, (1997) Cr.LJ 48) in support of his submission that the burden lies on the State Vs. Pradeep Malik 11 Challan No. VKC­1692­00740­1 prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution has failed in discharging the same in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1