Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1147 (4.54 seconds)
Documents citing State Of C.G vs Toman @ Doman Singh Thakur 36 ... on 18 June, 2018

State vs Arvind Sharma @ Pushkar on 19 August, 2025

32.3. Thereafter, IO inspected Santro car bearing No. DL-4CP-7712 and on checking, two mobiles make Nokia were found lying on the dashboard of the aforesaid car. On checking both were found containing SIM of Idea Company and were SC No. 57011/2016 Page 42 of 70 State v. Arvind Sharma @ Pushkar without batteries. Model of the aforesaid mobiles was 1280. However, he did not remember the IEMI number but same was mentioned by him in his statement after checking the same. The aforesaid mobiles converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and the same was sealed with the seal of 'GK'. The aforesaid pullanda was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-15/B. Thereafter, IO had separately lifted blood stained rori (bazri/soil), earth control, blood on gauge from the spot and were placed in separate plastic boxes (plastic dibi). The aforesaid plastic boxes were converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and were separately sealed with the seal of 'GK'. The aforesaid exhibits were seized by the IO vide seizure memos, proved as Ex.PW-8/H, Ex.PW-8/1 and Ex.PW-8/J. 32.4. Thereafter, IO had seized the aforesaid Santro car bearing No. DL-ACP-7712 vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-8/K. It was the same car which was used by the accused at the time of the incident. Thereafter, IO had seized the car of HC Shyam Lal bearing registration No. DL-3CP-3586 vide seizure memo proved as Ex.PW-8/L. There were blood stains on the aforesaid car and it was damaged from the front side. PW-16 has correctly identified the accused before the Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . : 1) Vikas @ Toni on 20 September, 2018

Their statements were recorded and they told that they do not suspect anybody. Those statements have not been placed on record. This clearly shows that till that time it was not the case that the injuries which were on the person of Dinesh were caused by Vikas @ Toni otherwise they must have told this fact to the police. PW-6 deposed that when Kajal reached their house she told him that Dinesh had sustained injuries due to State Vs. Vikas @ Toni SC No.272/18 :: 50 ::
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Narender Pal Singh @ Gagan Etc. (2) on 30 April, 2024

State V. Narenderpal Singh @ Gagan @ Chamoli & Anr. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it...."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 22 September, 2018

107. PW20 SI Manoj Dahiya  has been cross examined on this aspect. In the cross examination, PW20 has stated that  on 20/06/2011, when they reached at the house of Sanjay Shokeen, 2­3 persons were present. One of them  was mother of accused Sanjay Shokeen. He did State Vs. Sanjay Shokeen @ Sandeep FIR No. 216/11 P.S. - Vikas Puri Page 57 of 58 not record statement of his mother or any other person at that time. At that time, house of accused Sanjay Shokeen was built upto first floor. Accused   Sanjay   Shokeen   had   pointed   towards   the   bed   which   was lying in the room at the first floor and he told them that country made pistol was lying inside that bed. He had pointed towards the specific point where the aforesaid pistol was kept. At his pointing out, they recovered   the   aforesaid   pistol.   He   prepared   sketch   of   pistol   and seizure   memo   of   the   said   pistol.   No   public   person   was   joined   as witness to the said recovery. Vol. He has stated that apart from the relatives of accused, no other independent public person was present at that time and therefore public person could not be joined to the said recovery.     The   entrance   door   of   the   house   of   the   accused   Sanjay Shokeen was south facing.  He had denied that  he is deposing falsely as the entrace door of the accused house was  north facing or that  he had never visited the house of accused Sanjay Shokeen. The site plan of place of recovery of country made pistol was prepared. No chance print were obtained/lifted from the said pistol as well as cartridges. After   sealing   the   country   made   pistol   and   cartridges,   the   seal   was handed over by him to HC Satish. The said seal was handed over to him   by   Ct   Satish   on   the   same   day   after   he   deposited   the   sealed country made pistol and cartridges  at the malkhana.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Ashish Kumar Tiwari on 12 December, 2023

He stated that he was doing the work of catering. On the date of incident, he had returned at about 11-11:30 PM. His wife Sarita Tiwari was pregnant for 5-6 months. There was lot of algae on the floor in front of Room No. 5, 6 and 7 and the complainant used to throw beedi butts therein. His wife had to bring water from downstairs as there was no arrangement for water on first floor. His wife told PW Jayanti Devi SC No. 2681/2016 FIR No. 456/2016 State v. Ashish Kumar Tiwari & Ors Page No. 19 of 36 that due to algae anybody can slip on the floor and Jyanti Devi replied that in such case why don't you get your own house. After such talks repeated between his wife and Jayanti Devi 2-3 times, he talked to Indel Singh and he told him that he will counsel his wife.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1. Pradeep Kumar Pal on 17 January, 2019

30. Another contention raised by ld. defence counsel is that police officials did not join the public witnesses in the entire course of investigation SC No. 393/18 State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Pal etc. Page No.: 20 of 30 carried out. The police officials did not cite the public witnesses as necessary for just and fair adjudication of their case though, they had asked the public persons to join the same but none came agreed. Though, it is a rule that if victims supported the case of the prosecution, not joining of public witnesses should not left any negative impact.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Vijay Singh on 26 July, 2025

25. In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that he hit the complainant/injured with a pokar (suan meant for ice-breaking) on his back, chest and thigh, due to which he received injuries. PW1/complainant/injured in his testimony before the court has claimed that on the day of incident, he was sitting in B-Block Park along with his friends and was talking to them. Victim further claimed that in the meanwhile, accused came there in drunken condition and demanded money from him. It is relevant to mention here that the present incident is stated to be of night of 18.09.2016. The accused was arrested in the early morning of 19.06.2016 and was medically examined in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital at 10:34 AM vide MLC Ex. DW1/EX1. Perusal of the said MLC reveals that there is no mention of drunkenness of accused or any kind of smell of alcohol. Moreover, the victim has admitted in his cross examination that at the time of incident he along with his friends SC 58234/2016 STATE Vs. VIJAY SINGH FIR no. 581/2016 PS Punjabi Bagh Page 13 of 28 were consuming liquor in the said park. It is relevant to mention here that in his complaint given to the police, the complainant has stated that he was sitting in B-Block Park with his friends and was talking with them and suddenly accused came there and told him that he will pay his debt along with interest. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the complainant has stated the aspect that he was consuming liquor in the park in his complaint given to the police nor mentioned the same in his examination in chief. Meaning thereby, the complainant is taking contrary stand of the visit of accused at a place, where he was consuming liquor along with his friends. On one hand, complainant stated that accused offered to repay his debts along with interest in his police complaint and on other hand, complainant admitted that accused demanded money from him and further claimed that he refused to give money to the accused. Therefore, the complainant is trying to improve his version as stated in the police complaint and same is contrary and inconsistent with his earlier version.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Siddhu Ram on 27 September, 2025

39A, ASI Bhagwati Prashad alongwith Ct Shiv Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Y-324, Janta Market, Nangloi, New Delhi, where Sh. Ravinder @ Deepu and Sh. Sohan Lal had produced one person namely Siddhu Ram, to whom beatings were given by the public, produced before him. Thereafter, Sh. Ravinder @ Deepu got recorded his statement wherein he has stated that he is driver by profession. On 23.07.2017, in the evening time, he took his salary of Rs. 26,000/- from his owner Sh. Sohan Lal and informed him that he is going to his native village. At about 08:00 PM, when he was standing at the Sultan Puri Mor Bus stand, one boy came there and asked me as to where he was going. He told the said boy that he is going to Nizamuddin Railway Station on which the said boy told him that he is also going there so, they should hire one TSR to save their money. Thereafter, the said boy stopped one TSR bearing no. DL-1RP-6965 and he alongwith the said boy sat in the said TSR. When they reached at camp no.4, the said boy took one bottle of Maaza Case No. 623/2017 FIR No. 310/2017 Page 3 of 26 State v. Siddhu Ram & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next