Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 348 (5.61 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And, Ors vs Amar Singh And Another on 21 January, 1974

State vs Amar Singh on 20 August, 2025

20. Thirdly, in such like cases, prosecution is required to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that after seizure of the case property, there was no occasion for it to be tampered with and the seal remained intact till the time case property was produced in the State Vs. Amar Singh FIR No. 37/2020 PS Kalyanpuri 10 of 14 court. However, in the present case, as per the case of prosecution itself, seal after use was handed over by PW-2 to PW-1 who, being the only recovery witness is an interested witness. Evidently, the seal after use & prior to deposition of the case property at maalkhana was not handed over to an independent person.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Amar Singh, Fir No. 394/97, U/S : ... on 20 August, 2016

27. This   court   is   conscious   of   the   fact   that   neither   the   question   of ownership and possessory rights of the said property are in issue before it nor this court has jurisdiction to decide the same. Further, it is also a fact that the decision of the present case and decision in the said civil suit are based upon different evidence and different principles of appreciation of evidence. However, the   aforesaid   judgments   of   civil   courts   also   create   doubt   in   the   story   of   the prosecution   that   the   complainant  was   in  possession   of   the  disputed   property. Even,   independent   of   the   said   judgments   and   in   the   light   of   discussion   in preceding   paras,   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   conclusively   establish   that   the complainant was in possession of the disputed property. The onus of establishing the   guilt   of   the   accused   and   all   the   essential   ingredients   of   the   offence punishable under section 448 IPC are on the prosecution. The said onus can only be discharged by leading conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the State Vs. Amar Singh, FIR no. 394/97, u/s : 448/420/468 IPC,  PS OIA Page no. 14/14 accused beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the said section including possession of the disputed property with the complainant prior to alleged trespass. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 448 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Amar Singh on 2 May, 2025

15) Being guided by above-said case laws, it can be said that the search, seizure and recovery made by the above said police officials was in complete violation of State Vs. Amar Singh FIR No. 821/20 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 9/11 the well established principles of law and the same can be said to be illegal which create grave doubts on the prosecution's version of recovery of liquor from the possession of the accused from the spot and substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused at the police station and that entire proceedings were recorded at the police station and not on the spot.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Amar Singh Etc. Fir No. 234/97 Ps Subzi ... on 26 June, 2012

11. Ld. Defence counsel firstly argued that all the witnesses are police officials and in absence of corroboration by any independent public witness, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. In this regard, Ld. APP for the State argued that the secret information was duly reduced into writing and Nakabandi was arranged. It is further stated that sometimes the secret information are not found correct due to failure of intelligence. Ordinarily public persons are reluctant in U.ID NO. 02401R0020721998 Page No. 11 of 17 State Vs. Amar Singh etc. FIR No. 234/97 PS Subzi Mandi U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act joining proceedings of police. Moreover, it was not certain that the vehicle would definitely come and the period of Nakabandi could not be ascertained. In these circumstances, Ld. APP for the State argued, that the availability of public person could not be secured by the police.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Amar Singh on 1 November, 2025

examination she denied that it was accused persons who snatched her chain. Not just PW1 but PW2 as well as PW3 during cross-examination resiled from their earlier statements and did not support the case of prosecution. During cross-examination, PW2 stated that he was not present inside the room when the incident took place and Digitally signed State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 7 of 8 JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: 2025.11.01 NAIN 16:18:21 +0530 had not seen the accused persons at the spot. Similarly, PW3 during cross-examination stated that he received injuries during a quarrel with unknown persons whose faces he could not see due to darkness.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next