Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana And Another vs Devender Kishore on 13 February, 2009

State vs . 1. Devender Singh on 29 October, 2010

"It will be seen that the version of the complainant that the appellant asked the complainant whether he had brought the money and that the complainant told him that he had and that the appellant asked him to pay the money to the second accused is not spoken to by the panch witness PW3. According to panch witness on the complainant asking the appellant whether his work will be achieved, the appellant assured him in the affirmative and the appellant told the complainant what was to be given to the second accused. It is significant that PW3 does not mention about the appellant asking the complainant whether he had brought the money and on the complainant replying in the affirmative asking the complainant to pay the money to the second accused. Omission by PW3 to refer to any mention of money by the appellant would show that there is no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the State Vs. Devender Singh etc. Page No. 14/23 demand for the money by the appellant. On this crucial aspect, therefore, it has to be found that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied upon."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Devender Etc. on 21 April, 2012

23. Accused Sunil Kumar @ Bittoo has been charged u/s 411 IPC. It has been alleged that he got recovered four Gas cylinder of this present case and 17 more cylinders were recovered from him u/s 102 Cr.PC. Allegedly he was arrested from his shop. Therefore, it is seems that he used to run shop. PW8 Ct. Vinod has stated that State Vs. Devender etc. FIR no. 196/10 Page No.17 of 23 there was no board installed outside the shop of accused Sunil. There was adjoining shops on both the sides. There was a gate of CRPF in front of the shop of accused Sunil, however, he did not see if there was any guard on duty there. PW9 SI Sandeep has stated that there was no specific mark of identification on any of the cylinder. Perusal of record shows that even IO himself has not tried to put any mark on the cylinders in question after recovery. Further, from the evidence on record, it is manifest that there were shops near the shop of accused Sunil and even there was CRPF main gate where guards used to be available round the clock. But no public person has been joined at the time of recovery of alleged LPG Gas Cylinders. So, non­joining the public persons creates doubt in the prosecution case. An important point has been observed in case Law 1998(8) Supreme Court 435 that in absence of independent evidence merely on basis of police officer's evidence about seizure of pistol and cartridge conviction could not be upheld.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No:307/06; Ps Khajuri Khas; U/S ... vs . Devender on 26 August, 2010

She also deposed that in her statement to the police she had not stated that her husband Devender had gone to bring Kawar and when he returned he asked her to dance in the Mandir and that he had stated that he did not Page 5/18 6 FIR NO:307/06; PS KHAJURI KHAS; U/S 308/323/34 IPC; STATE VS. DEVENDER want to live her with him and to keep her in his house. While deposing so she confronted from her statement Ex. PW1/A. She also stated that accused left her parental house at about 3:00 p.m and stayed there for about half an hour and at that time, only her mother was present in the house and she had not seen the iron object however, they were having the same. Rest of her testimony is reiterited by her as submitted by her during examination in chief.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Devender 1 Out Of 13 on 9 July, 2009

10. During his cross examination PW-6 stated that he was not present at the time informer gave information to SHO and that Inspector Rakesh Giri had asked public persons to join investigations on the way to informed place. The PW-6 was unable to state about the measurements of weapon and for identification he stated that katta had a thread rolled over its butt. He also stated that he had not State Vs. Devender 5 out of 13 6 drawn up any memo of return of seal by HC Ram Prashad on next date and that he had finally left the spot at 12.15 pm. He was unable to tell as to who had deposited the weapon in Malkhana or when.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Devender Singh @ Kali on 5 August, 2010

Rani received injuries on the back. Police was called. Devender ran away from the spot. On 13.7.2006, at State V. Devender Singh -: 2 :- about 11.00/ 11.30pm, Mahender was present in his house. Devender entered inside his house alongwith 8/10 persons including his nephew Lala. Devender was having sword in his hand. Lala were having lathi in his hand. Devender and his other associates attacked Mahender with sword and danda. They ran away from the spot. Mahender was taken to hospital. Police was informed.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Devender @ Dev on 15 February, 2010

7. The SDM also recorded statement of Mrs.Ruth Massey mother of deceased who stated that marriage of her daughter Kimi @ Kirti aged about 18 years, had taken place with accused on 30.11.08 who had come to her house on 10.04.09 and remained there till 19.04.09 on which day accused came to take her back and therefore, she went back but in 20-30 minutes she alone came back in a rickshaw and told that she had quarrelled with accused because his -:5:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev sister has tutored him not to bring back deceased as she is inauspicious (MANHOOS HAI) and therefore, she will not go back to her husband's house where all the persons misbehave and taunt her on petty matters. She told her mother that her father-in-law does not like her and tells her husband that she does not know any work and should be kept away and he also taunts her on her dark complexion. She stated that her deceased daughter is in the habit of writing diary and she used to write everything in her diary. She also alleged that elder brother of accused does not do any work and he also used to harass deceased and tells her to cook food and hit her with glass and one day he pulled her chunni from her head. She also alleged that younger brother of accused kept on telling that deceased could not pull along and should be sent off. He told deceased that she had come from hut and always used to disregard her.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devender Kumar Sharma And Another vs State Of Haryana on 6 September, 2012

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Crl. Appeal No.D-424-DB of 2007 -4- Vijay Singh, ASI (Retd.), who mainly deposed regarding recording of formal FIR after receipt of ruqa. PW-2 Narender Kumar, SI/SHO, who mainly deposed that complainant Vishesh Sharma produced before him a written complaint on 11.09.2002 on which he made endorsement and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case. He also recorded the statement of Sher Singh. PW-3 Ram Niwas, Inspector simply prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW-4 Inder Sain, Assistant Ahlmad, mainly brought the record of State Vs. Devender arising out of FIR No.740 dated 11.09.2002 under Section 364 IPC, which was decided on 17.10.2004 after declaring the accused Devender Sharma as a proclaimed offender. PW-5 Satish Kumar is the brother of the accused and deposed that his brother was employed on Tata Sumo belonging to Vishesh Sharma-complainant. He stated that on 10.08.2002 Dharmender Sharma had taken the said car as a taxi with his brother as Driver. On 23.08.2004, he had accompanied with HC Ram Babu and complainant Vishesh Sharma and had gone to Badaun. Accused Devender was with them and he got recovered clothes of his brother, which were identified and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PC, which bears his signatures. He also deposed that the dead body of his brother was not recovered nor the place where his brother had been murdered was identified. Nothing else from anywhere else was recovered in his presence. This witness has been declared as hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. PW-6 Vishesh Sharma-complainant deposed as per prosecution version. He also deposed that the accused Crl. Appeal No.D-424-DB of 2007 -5- Devender Sharma, present in the Court, had come on the taxi stand and demanded taxi for going to Badaun, U.P. PW-7 Sher Singh, mainly deposed that in the year 2002, one Devender Sharma had come in rickshaw on the taxi stand. He finalized the deal of a taxi with Vishesh Sharma. He was to go somewhere in U.P. He then took the said taxi with him. Thereafter, the said taxi and driver did not return. In cross-examination, he stated that he had seen Devender Sharma from back side and therefore, he cannot identify him at this stage. PW-8 Ram Babu, Head Constable mainly deposed that accused Girish Kumar and Gian Singh who were in custody in another case under Section 364 IPC were interrogated and he deposed regarding the disclosure statements and recovery of pair of shoes of the deceased by Gian Singh. PW-9 Udham Singh, EHC, mainly deposed regarding the disclosure statement by Devender Kumar and recovery of pant, shirt and wrist watch of the deceased in pursuance of the disclosure statement. PW-10 Subhash Chand mainly deposed regarding DD No.12 dated 14.08.2002. PW-11 Ramphool SI, deposed regarding investigation of the case. PW-12 Gajender Singh, Reader mainly deposed that on 30.08.2004 an application was made for conducting test identification of Devender Singh, who refused to participate in the said identification parade and his statement was recorded and a separate order was passed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next