Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 513 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing State Tr.P.S.Lodhi Colony,New Delhi vs Sanjeev Nanda on 3 August, 2012

Fir No. 95/2007 Ps : New Ashok Nagar State vs . Sanjeev Etc. on 28 January, 2021

5. PW­1, Aditya Kumar Jha deposed that on 02.03.2017, he went to Noida for the supply of poly bags. While he was returning to his home in his Wagon R, at about 7­ 8 pm and when he reached at Kalindi Kunj flyover, his car slightly struck against one Zen like car. 3­4 persons came out Page 4 of 35 ACMM (East)/KKD/Delhi/28.01.2021 FIR No. 95/2007 PS : New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev etc. of the said car and an altercation took place between them. They started manhandling him and took out his two mobile phones from the dash board of his car. He was using mobile no. 9911226686 on one mobile phone and no. 9891190491 on other mobile phone. Those persons took out said mobile phones with them. Thereafter, he came back to his home and on 03.03.2007, he reported the matter to PS Saket, vide his report Ex. PW­1/A. He identified his signatures on his complaint at point A. He also reported the loss of his said phones to Idea Cellular Company, which in turn issued two sim cards to him of the respective numbers. As he was having only one mobile phone set and he used the sim card having no. 9891190491 on the said phone He never used the sim card having no. 9911226686 on his mobile phone after it was re­ issued.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ps Anand Parbat vs Unknown on 13 March, 2020

PW2 Const. Narender: He deposed that on 03.06.2014, MHC(M) has handed over the case property to him for FIR No. 78/14 State v. Sanjeev @ Sanju 4 of 15 PS Anand Parbat depositing the same at Excise Lab, ITO. Thereafter, he went to Excise Lab, ITO to deposit the case property vide RC No. 65/21/14 and after depositing the case property, he returned back to PS Anand Parbat and handed over the receipt to MHC(M) and case property is not tampered with till it remained in his possession.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sanjeev S/O Gulzari Lal on 14 July, 2014

9. Most crucial witness is PW5 Sukhdev Kumar. It is only this witness who is talking of harassment of Vandana for more dowry in the hands of all accused when they demanded Rs. 50,000/­ from her. Accused Seema administered sindoor forcibly in the mouth of Vandana and falsely intimated her parents that she had consumed poison. PW5 has himself wiped out examination State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 10 of13 in chief in cross­examination. He deposed that no dowry was demanded from them by any of the accused before marriage. He is not aware whether any such demand was made from his younger brother PW6 Vijay Kumar. He admitted it correct that whatever amount was spent in the marriage was spent by them voluntarily without any pressure from the accused party. Even no dowry was demanded on the day of the marriage. He is not aware of any specific date or month of demand of dowry by the accused. He is not aware of the date and month when Rs.50,000/­ were demanded. It seems that he is deposing exaggerated facts because he was not consulted when negotiations of marriage between Vandana and accused Sanjeev were going on. He was not present in any meetings that took place between his brother and accused party. He further deposed that accused persons never demanded anything in his presence from Vandana or from PW6 or his family members. He is deposing the facts which were told to him by PW6 and his family members and therefore, his evidence is hearsay because neither PW6 nor PW7, PW8 and PW12 Manish supported the prosecution case.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sanjeev @ Sanjeeva on 11 February, 2026

9. To prove the said allegations, complainant Ajay stepped into the witness box as PW1 and reiterated the aforesaid facts before the court. He deposed that on the date of the incident, while he was standing in the street and looking into his account books, the STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 6/9 accused Sanjeev approached him and asked him to bring a cigarette but the complainant refused to bring him a cigarette. Thereafter, the accused went away only to return back and hit the complainant with some sharp object. The accused hit the complainant on his left thigh due to which the complainant started bleeding. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot. The complainant's sister called the police and the complainant was taken to hospital for medical treatment. The said testimony of the complainant is in line with his initial complaint, Ex. PW1/A and is also corroborated by the MLC Ex. AD-3 & AD-4. There is no contradiction or improvement in the testimony of the complainant/PW1. The said incident was immediately reported to the police and in that regard GD No. 0104A dated 22/03/2022 was recorded whereafter, the statement of the complainant was promptly recorded and there is no delay in the registration of FIR.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sanjeev And Anr on 15 January, 2026

19. It is established law that it is the testimony of the Nisha Sahay injured / eye witness, which is most vital, to arrive at a logical Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 8 / 9 Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:47 +0530 conclusion qua the accused persons in respect of the offences, they have been charged with. In the case in hand, the only surviving eye witness has given a clean chit to both the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next