Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 275 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Sunil General Stores And Another 8 ... on 28 February, 2019

Fir No. 922/14 State vs . Arun Chauhan 1/56 on 6 April, 2019

11. PW-4 is one Pankaj Sharma, friend of maamaji (Anil) of the deceased. He deposed that as his motorcycle got punctured on the night previous to the incident at about 10.00 pm, at some distance from the house of Anil and repair shops had been closed by that time, he left his motorcycle at the house of Anil and took black Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle from Anil to go back to his own home. Next FIR No. 922/14 State Vs. Arun Chauhan 13/56 morning at about 6.45 am, while going to house of Anil in order to take his motorcycle, he saw deceased coming on a motorcycle from Ganga Vihar side and going towards Gokalpuri while accused was sitting on back seat of motorcycle. Around noon time, he received information via telephone from Anil that deceased Akash was murdered. He had previously known the accused as the accused was tenant of PW-1, Subhash, who was brother in law of Anil, his friend and the witness had met him at the residence of Subhash on some occasions/functions.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Anar Devi on 6 September, 2023

45. PW-2 has also deposed that her daughter 'S' had made PCR call at 100 number, but, she did not remember the exact time, when said call was made, but it was after about 30 minutes of the occurrence of incident in question. She has also deposed that the police had reached the spot, after about 2 hours of the incident and her husband had not returned from hospital till that time. She has also deposed that she was removed to hospital by police only after her husband returned to the house. Till her husband came back to house, the police officials were State Vs. Anar Devi & Ors. SC No. 170/2019 FIR No. 271/2016 30 waiting at the spot itself. The police officials stayed at the spot for about 15-20 minutes before removing her to the hospital. They were two police officials and she could not tell names or even rank of said two police officials and stated that they were, however, from local PS. She has also deposed that there were residential houses situated near her house and about 15-20 residents of the gali had collected at the spot, on hearing the cries, but by that time, the accused had already committed the incident and on seeing those neighbourers, the accused persons fled away from there. However, said two police officials did not make any enquiry from any of the neighbourers, regarding the incident in her presence. The names of some of those neighbourers are Ms. Babita and Ms. Munni. She has also deposed that she had told to the police, in her statement given to the police that few neighbourers including Babita and Munni had collected at the spot and accused had fled away on seeing them. She was confronted with her signed statement Ex.PW2/A, where this fact was not found mentioned. She has also deposed that police had recorded her statement only once and she had put her thumb impression on it.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mohd Saddam @ Mohd Gauri Etc on 14 February, 2024

50. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law on Section 220 and especially on the aspect of same transaction, let us discuss the facts of the case if the possession of the fire arm by accused Saddam was the part of same transaction wherein injured Heera suffered gun-shot injury. Admittedly, no bullet was recovered from the spot, nor any bullet was recovered from the body of injured. It is only the fired cartridge which could have connected the fire arm allegedly recovered from accused Saddam. Prosecution knew from the inception that no bullet had been recovered in this case and therefore, the alleged fire arm recovered from accused Saddam, could not have been connected with the incident of causing gunshot injury to victim Heera. Had State Vs Saddam @ Md. Gauri & Anr. SC No. 56082/2016 FIR No. 321/2014 27/28 it been the case that a bullet had been recovered, which was likely to be connected with the fire arm, the prosecution would have well been within its right to investigate the offence of possession of fire arm in the present FIR. The only logical conclusion which one can arrive into is that the act of accused causing injury to victim by gun-shot and the recovery of the fire arm are not the part of the same transaction. Hence, the offence of section 25 Arms Act could not have been investigated and clubbed in the present FIR. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the accused could not have been tried in this trial for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act with the offence of Section 307/34 IPC. Hence, accused Saddam is entitled to be acquitted from the offence u/s 25 Arms Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reference Is Also Made To The Case Titled ... vs . State" on 9 November, 2022

8. In order to establish that the accused was driving the alleged offending vehicle at the alleged and time, the Prosecution had examined PW-4 who is the victim as well as the complainant in the present case and the said witness has specifically deposed that he had not seen the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. During the cross-examination by the Ld. APP, the said witness, when pointed towards the accused and asked to identify him, had specifically stated that Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date: 2022.11.09 16:51:20 +0530 FIR No. 303/16 State v. Arvind Kr. Mishra 13 of 19 PS Anand Parbat he cannot say whether the accused is the same person who was driving the offending vehicle as it did not pay any attention to the driver of the vehicle as he was driving his rickshaw while his head was facing downwards and he was not looking in the front. PW-4 is the natural and eyewitness in the present case and there are no other material witnesses who could have established the fact of the accused driving the offending vehicle in question. From the perusal of the testimony of PW-4 it can be noticed that he has clearly not been able to depose that it was the accused who was driving the alleged offending vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner. The said witness had identified the offending vehicle in question and same was exhibited as Ex.P-1(colly). Further, even the remaining Proscution witnesses, who are formal witnesses, have not been able to prove that they had seen the accused driving the alleged offending vehicle. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the Prosecution has been able to establish the fact that it was only and only the accused Arvind Kumar Mishra himself who was driving the alleged vehicle in question and it was the accused only who had caused the alleged accident at the alleged date and time.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Asif on 24 April, 2026

20. The accused has attempted to set up a defence by introducing a witness Nazim, who claimed that he was present with the accused at the time of the incident and deposed that the accused was not driving rashly or negligently. However, this Court finds the said testimony to be wholly unreliable and unworthy of credence. It is noteworthy that: the accident occurred at a busy intersection. The STATE Vs. ASIF FIR No. 83/2013 PS: DBG ROAD Page 13 of 16 impact was severe and drew immediate public attention. The accused Asif was apprehended at the spot by public persons. In such circumstances, had the defence witness Nazim truly been present at the scene, it is inconceivable that he would have remained unnoticed or uninvolved. The natural course of events would have led to his presence being recorded or at least acknowledged by the police or public at the spot. The belated introduction of such a witness appears to be a desperate afterthought--an attempt to create a veneer of doubt where none exists. It is important to note that Nazim is not an independent witness but is the superdar of the offending truck, thereby rendering his sudden projection as an eyewitness highly suspect and interested in nature. Also, if Nazim had indeed been an occupant of the offending vehicle and a witness to the incident, there was no plausible reason for him not to have disclosed this crucial fact in his statement to the police. Even more telling is the fact that when Nazim appeared before the Court earlier as a prosecution witness, he never whispered a word in his initial testimony that he was present inside the offending truck at the relevant time or that he had witnessed the occurrence. This conspicuous silence at every earlier stage--during investigation as well as in his deposition before the Court--strikes at the very root of the credibility of this belated version. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that such a material fact, if true, could never have been omitted inadvertently. The omission is not minor but fundamental, and clearly indicative of an afterthought.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ram Niwas Rathor on 20 December, 2025

(iv) PW-4 HC Prakash deposed that on 31.10.2023, he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Uttam Nagar. On that day, he was present in the police station and he was marked the investigation of DD no. 87. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e WZ-42, Om Vihar, Phase-III, Uttam Nagar alone where he met the complainant namely Sh. Sudhir along-with accused namely Ram Niwas along-with the case property. Ct Sudhir handed over the case property and the apprehended accused to this witness. PW-4 checked the katta and upon counting, it was found containing 75 quarter bottles of Race 7 Metro Liquor desi sharab for sale in Haryana only. He took out one sample and sealed the same with the seal of PC. The remaining quarter bottles were put inside the same white plastic katta and sealed with the seal of PC. He prepared form M-29 which is Ex.PW-4/A. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Sudhir. This witness prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. PW-4 recorded the statement of Ct. Sudhir Ex.PW-1/A on the basis of which he prepared the tehrir Ex.PW-4/B and handed over the same to Ct. Sudhir for getting the FIR registered. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. He came back to the spot and State v/s Ram Niwas Rathor Page 5 Cr. Case No. 21529/2024 handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to this witness. PW-4 prepared the site plan Ex.PW-1/C and interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/D. PW-4 arrested the accused vide arrest memo ExPW1/E and prepared the personal search memo ExPW1/F. Thereafter, PW-4 took the case property to the police station along-with Ct Sudhir & the accused. The accused was lodged behind the bars after getting his medical examination conducted. PW-4 deposited the case property in the malkhana and also sent the sample to the excise lab for expert opinion through Ct. Prahlad. He also recorded the statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Jasvinder Singh on 28 August, 2024

16. The present case also suffers from another infirmity as IO/PW-9 admitted that accused had handed over the documents Ex.PW- 9/D-1 (colly, running into 8 pages), to him during investigation but he did not attach the same to the chargesheet. The natural corollary is that IO did not make any attempt to verify the aspect of presence of accused either at the spot of alleged incident or before the Court of concerned SEM on 26.02.2014. No statement of any police official concerned with the Digitally signed by State vs. Jasvinder ARVIND SC No. 345/2016 ARVIND BANSAL FIR No. 127/2014 BANSAL Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next