Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Ali Sher @ Raju vs The State & Another on 21 January, 2011

State vs . 1. Anwar on 22 April, 2014

A. 464/11 (DHC) decided on 26/03/2013; 'State Vs. Lalita' CRL.L.P. 501/2013 (DHC) decided on 16/09/2013; 'Ali Sher @ Raju Vs. The State' Manu/DE/0520/2011; 'State Vs. Rahul' 2011(2) JCC701; 'Abass Ahmad Chaudhary Vs. State of Assam' 2010 CRLJ2060 (SC); 'Sadashiv Ramarao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and another' 2006(10)SCC92; 'Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of MP' AIR2010SC1540; 'Raghunath Vs. State of NCT' Manu/DE/1127/2004; 'Pradeep @ Sonu Vs. State (Delhi)' 2011 (2)JCC1031; 'Krishan Kumar Mallik Vs. State of Haryana' Manu/ 156 of 161 157 FIR No. 1408/07 PS - Sultan Puri SC/0718/2011; 'Sumit Gupta Vs. State (Delhi)' Manu/DE/3699/2009; 'Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana' 2005(2) RCR 817; 'Vinay Krishna Vs. State of Rajasthan' 2004 (1) RCR 565; 'Radhu Vs. State of MP' JT 2007(11) SC 91.
Delhi District Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1 Pradeep @ Machhender (A-1) on 18 February, 2017

In Ali Sher Vs. State 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12175, the accused had fired at the police party when he was asked to surrender. He was nabbed and a pistol was recovered from him. In that case also, no corroboration was there from independent corner and no police official got any injury. However, the conviction u/s 186/353/307 IPC was maintained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court while holding that though all the witnesses were police FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 11 of 15 personnel and there was no public witnesses but that may not be a sufficient ground for not sustaining the conviction of the appellant if the evidence was reliable and trustworthy. Here, whereas, there is corroboration from a neutral source i.e. taxi driver Inderjeet. I have already observed above that PW1 Inderjeet was unfortunate. For no fault of his, he too was apprehended, brought to PS for extensive interrogation and allegedly beaten-up by the police. There was firing from his taxi and, naturally, initially, even the police suspected his involvement and, therefore, police was justified in making interrogation from him. However, once the thorough interrogation was made, the police was convinced that he had no role to play and, therefore, he was let off and merely cited as witness. There is no reason to believe that his deposition is artificial or motivated. Defence has completely failed to explain as to why PW1 Inderjeet, with whom accused persons have no enmity, would depose against them.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1