Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. vs Manoj And Mukesh Son Of Balbir And Sanjai ... on 19 September, 2005

State vs Mukesh @ Manoj And Anr on 31 July, 2025

21. It is submitted on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State that robbed articles were recovered from the possession of both the accused persons. It is further submitted that Rs. 700/- and PAN Card of the complainant were recovered from the possession of accused Mukesh @ Manoj during investigation of the case and Rs. 820/- were recovered from the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 30 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:15 +0530 possession of accused Rahul during the investigation of the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.C No. 59/11 State vs . Manoj @ Sonu 1/17 on 22 January, 2013

18. When the point raised on behalf of the accused that he is not the owner of the inspected premises stand nullified, identity of the accused as well as property stand established and there does not seem to be animosity against the accused, the testimony of Shri Nagender Gupta, Senior Manager, PW-2, Shri Ashok Kumar, Assistant S.C No. 59/11 State Vs. Manoj @ Sonu 16/17 Vice President, PW-4 and Shri Chandresh Kumar, lineman PW-5 has to be relied upon. The inspection also stands corroborated by the photographs taken during the course of inspection which also show that there was no meter installed at the site. As such electricity appears to be used by tapping with the knowledge of the accused and there does not appear to be any reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses. It appears to be improbable that the accused may have been falsely implicated by the officers of the complainant.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Criminal Case/954/1999 on 6 November, 2013

12. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused persons. All the accused persons deserves to be acquitted. It is ordered accordingly. Bail bond and surety bond of accused is extended for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court today i.e. 06.11.2013 (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South, New Delhi/06.11.2013 FIR No. 954/99 State v. Sanjay @ Manoj and Others 8 of 8
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj Kumar @ Sonu on 6 July, 2012

16 In this case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused, however, the complainant who is also the star witness of the prosecution and the victim i.e. PW2 Deepti Sharma has not supported the case of the prosecution and she could not identify the accused in the court. During her cross­examination by Ld. APP, PW2 denied that she had been won over by the accused or that she was deposing falsely. Complainant categorically denied her statement u/s 161 State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Sonu page 7 of 8 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police and she stated that no such statement was given by her to the police. Further, it is pertinent to mention that during TIP proceedings, the complainant also could not identify the case property allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. All the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 17 The prosecution has failed to establish that accused Manoj Kumar @ Sonu used criminal force against the complainant Deepti Sharma and snatched her purse containing valuable articles. 18 Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The accused Manoj Kumar @ Sonu is accordingly acquitted for the offence u/s 356/379 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj @ Sonu on 15 May, 2010

17. The search of the accused conducted by IO and other police officials is illegal. The alleged secret informer has not been examined at all by the Page 7 of 8 8 FIR No. 121/07 State vs. Manoj @ Sonu prosecution. Accordingly, the court holds that prosecution has failed to discharge the onus proving that the accused was in possession of a country made pistol (Desi Katta) loaded with a live cartridge. He is thus acquitted of the charges levelled against him. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. Case property be confiscated to State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to Record Room.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj Kumar on 4 June, 2010

He further argued that the prosecutrix herself has stated in Ex. PW. 2/A that she was in love with the accused Manoj Kumar and she has deposed that she has met SC No.36/09 14 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Sonu, brother of the accused Manoj Kumar as well as accused Manoj Kumar at her friend 's house. Ld. Defence Counsel took the exception to the fact that the prosecution did not cite or examine Ms Swati at whose residence the prosecutrix used to meet accused Manoj Kumar and his brother Sonu. Ld. Counsel has summarized his argument by saying that this is a false and fabricated case just to extort money from the accused and circumstances of the case require corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix and it is not the case where implicit reliance can be placed in the statement of the prosecutrix.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next