Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Chotey Lal & Others on 25 May, 1999

State vs . Chote Lal on 7 April, 2010

7. Despite the fact that accused was allegedly arrested from a public place at about 15.01.2003 at about 08:00 PM at Gol Chakkar, near Lal Park, DBG Road, Delhi, no public 7 State Vs. Chote Lal witness was joined. Constable Raj Kumar, IO HC Hawa Singh and Const. Sanjay Kumar that no public witness had joined. No action was taken against the public persons, who refused to join the proceedings. The testimony of official witnesses does not find any corroboration from any independent source. In my view, the non joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by prosecution for non joining of public witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Chottey Lal. on 15 April, 2010

11. The case property was allegedly deposited by the IO with the MHCM but the MHCM failed to turn up in the witnessbox to depose as to whether any case property was deposited with him by the IO and if so, the date, time and the details of the property deposited with him could not be brought on record. Thereafter, whether the MHCM handed over the sample to PW 2 for depositing the same in Excise Laboratory could 7. State Vs. Chottey Lal.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Godaji @ Godaji vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2023

20. The learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the decision in State v. Chotey lal reported in 1999 0 Crl.L.J 3411 wherein the appeal preferred by one of the accused who was convicted under section 411 of IPC was accepted holding that when the substratum of the prosecution case is failed, the recovery alleged to have been made from the said accused looses all significance. The facts of the said case are entirely different. In the said case, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 411 IPC. The Court has held that recovery of the weapons and the stolen articles at the instance of the accused does not inspire confidence. In the case on hand, the evidence with regard to the recovery of MOs.1 to 3 from accused No.1, inspires confidence of the court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Nawaz - Full Document
1