Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 240 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana vs Jagbir Singh And Anr on 26 September, 2003

Sc No.93­09 (State vs . Jagbir Singh & Anr.) on 24 May, 2011

SI Jarnail Singh Page 10 of 15 SC No.93­09 (State vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.) visited both the spots. The site plan prepared at the instance of Geeta i.e. the spot where allegedly Kuldeep was shot, is Ex.PW21/B. Exhibits were picked and seized from there. The site plan of the second spot i.e. where Ajay Pal had allegedly suffered self shot gun injury Ex.PW21/C was prepared. IO proved the arrest of accused Jagbir and remaining investigation conducted by him. As per medical opinion, accused Ajay Pal was found to have suffered self shot gun injury. FSL report, Ex.PW21/D was collected and photographs were also proved as Ex.PW21/E1 to E12. The FSL result of Ballistic Division was proved as Ex.PW21/F. IO also identified the case properties as Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­6. In the cross examination IO admitted that as per PCR form, the call was made by one Savitri and her name has appeared in the PCR form Ex.PW21/DA. IO stated that as per Ex.PW21/DB Savitri was present at the spot and Ajay Pal S/o Kehar Singh has fired a shot at Kuldeep. It is a matter of record that Savitri is not a witness of prosecution. IO was not knowing that Savitri was mother of Kuldeep. He admitted that in the information recorded vide DD No.41A there is no mention of the name of Jagbir. IO also admitted that he did not record statement of Geeta when he first reached at the spot. The statement of Geeta was recorded only after the registration of FIR. IO also admitted that katta was not examined by any Finger Print Expert. 4.0 In their statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, accused persons denied all the allegations and submitted that they have been falsely implicated.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagbir on 17 March, 2018

State vs. Jagbir He further stated that no eye witness was met in the hospital. Thereafter, he came back to the spot where also no eye witness was met. He made endorsement on the DD No. 53-B and handed over the same to Constable Kare Lal for registration of FIR. He stated that Constable Kare Lal went to the police station. He further stated that in the meantime, Constable Ved Prakash and Constable Karan Singh came at the spot, who had witnesses the incident. The above noted contradictions go to the root of the matter and cast a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. Conclusion I am of the considered view that the evidence of both the alleged eye witnesses is not reliable inasmuch as their presence at the place of the incident is highly doubtful and that their conduct is also unnatural in not informing 100 number or in not taking the injured to hospital. I am of the view that they are not truthful witness and their conduct by itself, in my view, is sufficient to hold that they did not see the incident and are "planted witnesses".
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagbir Singh & Anr. on 6 February, 2010

FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur the case of the prosecution for the same viz. having obstructed the police officials in the due discharge of their duties as also having assaulted the police official/PW15 SI Jai Raj Singh as also caused injury to him with their fire arms with the requisite intention or knowledge of causing his death as also being in possession of unlicensed arms and ammunitions on the relevant date, place and time, cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution against the accused in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt in the same despite the PWs 1 to 18 apart from the star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PWs 3 and 8, as above said, and PW17 having been given up by the Ld. APP for the State, having deposed against them in this regard; that even no sanction/complaint has been proved by the prosecution in the instant case, on record, for the prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353 IPC for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case as mandatorily required under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as amended up to date) and as such prosecution of the accused qua the said offences in the instant case on record is bad in law; that the alleged MLC in respect of the alleged injured ASI Jai Raj Singh has also not been proved in the instant case, on record, as is required under the law in that the testimony of the relevant prosecution witness viz. Dr. Victor of AIIMS who is alleged to have examined the said alleged injured has not been led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, and accordingly, the same which is forming an important ingredient of the offences alleged against the accused and of which they stand charged in this court in the instant case i.e. of causing 11/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No. 14/01, Fir No. 96/99 1 State vs Jagbir Singh Etc. on 6 December, 2007

I therefore order release of both the convicts on probation of good behaviour for a period of two years on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 10 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. one surety in the like amount each subject to the condition that during this period they shall keep peace and shall not repeat the offence and receive the sentence as and when called by this court. Apart from this convict Jagbir Singh shall pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/- to injured Rajesh and Rs.5000/- to injured Smt. Phoolwati.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Jagbir Singh on 3 August, 2016

16.                               With respect to another contention raised on behalf of accused   that   CC   TV   footage   of   the   spot   has   not   been   filed   by   the prosecution showing the presence of accused at the spot and indulging into   touting,   to   this   argument,   it   is   observed   that   the   testimony   of prosecution   witnesses   is   reliable,   firm   and   unshaken   by   cross examination and accordingly, the same is relied upon by the Court and State V. Jagbir Singh FIR No. 28/15 PS: Domestic Airport                                                                    Page No. 8 of 10 absence of CC TV footage is of no use when the testimony  of witnesses is reliable and further the fact that no defence whatsoever has been led on behalf of accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

3. Title Of The Case : State vs Jagbir Singh on 26 March, 2012

5. In the present case seal after use was handed over to PW­4 Ct. Krishan Kumar, who is a police official happens to be posted with the same poliec station where the samples and the case property remained deposited till its analysis. As per the testimony of the witnesses the case property after the recovery was handed over to HC Surender and thereafter was deposited by him with PW­2. Both the witnesses have not stated on oath that the case property remained intact while it was in their possession. So as per ratio of the cases discussed above the chain of the prosecution evidence is not FIR NO. 747/01 State vs Jagbir Singh Page No 5 of 6 complete that the samples which were deposited with the FSL were not tempered and were the same which were taken from the material allegedly recovered from the accused. Even the case property produced before the court was also found in unsealed conditions and tampered seals.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next