Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 606 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

Krishan Kumar vs . State on 16 July, 2012

13. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there is no eye witness account that the vehicle in question was driven by the appellant on the fateful day and the eye witness PW­3 is a planted witness by the police in order to solve the case. But this contention is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as PW­3 in unequivocal term deposed that accused was driving the vehicle as PW­3 was on duty near about the scene of incident and he had seen the incident whereby the appellant/accused had hit his bus with the motorcycle in question and the deceased died. No suggestion CA No.18/12 8 16.07.2012 Krishan Kumar Vs. State CA No.18/12 has been given by the appellant/accused to PW­3 that accused was not driving the bus. Furthermore, PW­6, owner of the vehicle had testified in his chief that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.DL 1PB 3552 on 27.09.2008 i.e fateful day on which the bus met with accident with the motorcycle. Even no such suggestion has been given to PW­6 that accused was not driving the bus on the fateful day and the bus in question was not being plied by the accused on the permissible route and the place of accident not falls on the said permissible route.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs State on 22 May, 2024

14. Order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and when it is reversed it does not result in the termination or culmination of proceedings against the accused. Appreciating the facts of this case, statues and in the backdrop of the above case laws it is evident that order u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory orders in so far as no right of accused pertaining to trial has been decided therein CR no. 1869/2024 CNR No.DLSW01-004251-2024 Page 7 of 8 Krishan Kumar Vs State and by virtue of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. no revision qua them can be filed.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asi Ram Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 October, 2012

State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 8085 of 2012 titled as Rajwanti vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4262 of 2012 titled as Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4263 of 2012 titled as Sunil Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5963 of 2012 titled as Ram Rattan HC No. 594/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5567 of 2012 titled as Dilwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6110 of 2012 titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6120 of 2012 titled as Rambir Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6122 CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 13 of 2012 titled as Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6123 of 2012 titled as Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others,CWP No. 6129 of 2012 titled as Bijender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5326 of 2012 titled as Navender Singh ASI No. 310/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5373 of 2012 titled as Dharambir Singh EASI No. 209/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 5376 of 2012 titled as Joginder Singh ASI No. 413/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, as common questions of fact and law are involved in these cases.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 18 - A G Masih - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Ubhan Yadav @ Abhay Kumar Yadav on 2 June, 2021

(65) It is also relevant to mention here that the Forensic/Pathological examination of Vaginal smear of the deceased was done by the FSL, Lucknow who in turn sent a report which was taken into record by the trial court on 14.03.2014 and on this report, number B31/2 was introduced but it was not exhibited; even then the trial court considered in the judgment and observed that even no semen or spermatozoa was found, but in the injury alleged, abrasion was found on the genital part of the accused; and the accused-appellant was also seen by the Mohd. Khaleel (PW-3) in between 02:00 - 02:30 p.m. at the place of incident, when he was going towards the village from the place of incident, therefore, the accused-appellant is guilty; but the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that in case, no spermatozoa is found in the FSL examination of slides of vaginal smear then it was obligatory to conduct the DNA test; and the Investigating Agency also failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 53A of Cr.P.C. (amended in year 2006) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (supra), therefore, the prosecution story is not reliable in relation to the manner in which alleged offence has been committed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sit, Cid, Bengaluru vs Prajwal Revanna on 2 August, 2025

As held in Krishan Kumar [Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 61] (para 44), Section 53-A re- ally "facilitates the prosecution to prove its case". A positive result of the DNA test would constitute clinching evi- dence against the accused if, however, the result of the test is in the negative i.e. favouring the accused or if DNA pro- filing had not been done in a given case, the weight of the other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered. It is to the other materi- als brought on record by the prosecu- tion that we may now turn to.
Bangalore District Court Cites 156 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Praveen Naidu on 29 July, 2025

19. It is also noted that the prosecutrix, in her deposition, stated that she had narrated the incident to one Tara Aunty, who was employed as a cook at the hostel where the prosecutrix was residing at the relevant time. Evidently, Tara Aunty would have been a material witness for the prosecution; however, it is significant to note that she was never examined nor cited as a witness by the prosecution. [Ref: Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (supra)]
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs . State And Ors. on 1 May, 2018

In   this   complaint,   he   does   not   talk   about   any recovery made by ASI Pritam Singh. He made complaint dated 12.01.2011 to PWG Cell. In this complaint also, he does not talk about any recovery made by ASI Pritam Singh. For the first time, he mentions the fact of recovery in his complaint dated 14.07.2011 to PWG Cell and in the said complaint also he did Krishan Kumar vs State and ors.                                                                                                                              Page no. 3 of 4 CR No. 56/2018 not disclose the date of the recovery. Perusal of the contents of the complaint dated   14.07.2011   shows   that   the   alleged   recovery   was   made   after 12.01.2011.   It   is   not   natural   that   the   respondents   would   keep   the   stolen articles and the cash in their house for over two months from the date of the theft. The complainant did not make any complaint to the SHO or to the higher officers of Police immediately after the alleged recovery.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next