Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 168 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another vs Syed Naseem Zahir And Others on 13 October, 1992

State vs . Naseem Etc. on 24 March, 2008

State Vs. Naseem Etc. S. C. No. 114/02/05 2 About 8 or 10 days prior to this incident, he had brought his co-accused Ajay Pal with him. Both of them used to sleep in the factory. On that day, weekly account of the workers was being settled. Naseem was also called in the office. He had agreed to get Rs.200/- deducted per week so as to clear the advance payment. The balance payment was therefore, made to him. After 15 minutes, Naseem and Ajay Opal had stood at the gate of the office. Bnaseem and Ajay Pal were having desi kattas in their hands. Accused Naseem had fired towards Naseem ul Arfin. However he had ducked and the bullet had grazed his shirt and hit the wall. On hearing sound of fire, the other workers had come out. On seeing them accused Naseem and Ajay Pal started fleeing away. They were chased. Constable Rajeev of Police Station Darya Ganj, who was in the Police Booth near the corner of Faiz Bazar saw some persons coming from the side of Pataudi House and one of those persons was having a revolver in his hands. He (Constable Rajeev) tried to apprehend that person Naseem. He (Naseem) had aimed the revolver towards Constable Rajeev and had tried to fire the shot but that had missed. Constable Rajeev grappled with him. His uniform was torn. Persons from the public had also reached there. Constable Birender who was also on patrol duty with Constable Rajeev had seen the accused Naseem firing. Accused Naseem was apprehended.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 227/16 State vs . Naseem 1/13 on 23 December, 2016

6.3.2. During cross examination, he has admitted that 10-12 persons were beating the accused but none joined the investigation. He did not observe any injury on the body of the complainant. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant but he was not aware whether complainant was made witness to it or not. Driver of TSR had also come to PS but he was not cited witness to this case. He noticed minor injuries on the body of the accused but accused did not ask for his medical examination. It is denied that FIR No. 227/16                       State Vs. Naseem          4/13 ustra was planted upon the accused or that accused was lifted from the way when he was going from Yamuna Vihar towards Mohan Nagar or has been falsely implicated in this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Naseem And Anr on 4 March, 2024

8. PW-2 is HC Aasif Khan, who deposed that on 11.11.2014, he reached near Chand Cinema, Bus Stop and met with IO/HC Satbir, complainant Sachin Dobriyal who told him the facts regarding the present case and at around 8:00 PM, IO HC Satbir gave him the rukka and complaint of the present case and sent him to the Police Station Kalyan Puri for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station Kalyan Puri and handed over the complaint and original rukka to HC Yatvir, Duty Officer to register the FIR of the present case. He deposed that investigation in the present case was marked to ASI Lakhi Singh and he handed over the copy of FIR, complaint and rukka to ASI Lakhi Singh. PW-2 further deposed that on 12.11.2014, when he was present in the police station, complainant came to the police station and met with the IO and thereafter, IO prepared a team including himself, Ct. Upender and complainant Sachin Dobriyal and also shared the information and the facts to the team. Thereafter, he along with the aforesaid team members went to Kalyan Puri, Terminal by police vehicle where accused persons were found at Kalyan Puri, Terminal. At the instance of AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.03.04 17:52:23 +0530 FIR No:- 1027/14 State v. Naseem & Ors. Page No. 4 of 12 complainant, accused persons were apprehended by the team and their personal search was also conducted. In the personal search of accused Aditya @ Bhalu, one knife was recovered having total length of 19 cm, length of blade being 7 cm, length of handle being 12 cm, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and sketch of the same is Ex.PW2/B. PW-2 correctly identified case property i.e. one knife of steel metal having red stripes on handle, which was recovered from accused Aditya @ Bhalu as Ex.P1.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Naseem on 7 January, 2025

Driver of the said truck, namely Naseem S/o Asgar, was apprehended. Police Control Room was informed about the said fact. Thereafter, HC Ved Prakash arrived at the spot from PS Kotla Mubarakpur. Ct. Hawa Singh made a statement seeking legal action FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 2/9 against said Naseem. On the basis of said statement, FIR no. 996/2014 PS Kotla Mubarakpur was registered and investigation was taken up. After due investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed against the accused Naseem u/s 186/353/367 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Naseem on 2 April, 2018

(iii)   In   case   law   reported   as  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.   State   of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had State Vs. Naseem; FIR No. 91/17; PS RN 5/6 observed as under:­ "5.   In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to   establish   its   case   beyond   all   reasonable doubts.   It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next