Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Nath And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 6 November, 1987

Desraj S/O Ramgopal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 August, 1994

In this connection he pointed out from the case of Hari Nath v. State of U.P. (supra) that the value of the test identification, apart altogether from the other safeguards appropriate to a fair test of identification depends on the promptitude in point of time with which the suspected persons are put up for test identification. Here in the present case identification was done after 30 days of the arrest of the accused persons as the Investigating Officer Shri K. G. Vaidya (P.W. 10) has stated that the accused were arrested on 28th June, 1991.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

State vs Sidhartha Vashisht And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

Private Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Controller and Ors. ; R v. R Turnbull 63 Criminal Appeal Report 132; Budhsen and Ors. v. State v. UP ; Duraipandi Tewar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ; Hari Nath and Anr. v. State of UP ; Bollavaran P N Reddy and Ors. v. State of AP ; Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra ; Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi v. State of Maharashtra ; The King v. Thomas Dwyer & Allen Ferguson (1925) 2 K B 799; Sharad Birdi Chand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra ; Ramgopal v. State ; State of HP v. Om Parkash ; Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari v. State ; Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan JT 2000 (7) SC 549; Emperor v. Ardali Mian AIR 1933 Patna 496; Jagdeo Singh v. Emperor 24 Cr L J 69; Sukhram v. State of M.P. 1989 C C Cases 135 (SC); Zahira Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 2004 (2) SCC 158; Satyajeet Banerjee v. State of West Bengal ; Tokh Ram v. State 1982 Cr L J; P Varadrajulu Naidu v. King Emperor 2nd 42 Mad 885; Kessowji Issur Great Indian Peninsula 34 Indian Appeals 115 : 2nd Vol.XXXI PC 381; Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh ; Empress of India and Anr. 2nd 5 ALL.218; Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bimal Krishna Sen and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 316; Ukha Kohle v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1531; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal ; Bir Singh and Ors. v. State of UP ; Rajeshwar Prasad v. State of WB AIR 1965 SC 1887; MP Lohia v. State of West Bengal ; The King v. Parke (1903) K B 432; Ramchander v. State of Haryana ; Emperor v. Ram Singh AIR 1948 Lah.
Delhi High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010

120) Hari Nath & Anr vs. State of U.P. (1988) 1 SCC 14 is also distinguishable on facts as the accused were residing in village in the close vicinity of the village of the prosecution witness (members of house hold where dacoity was committed) and that accused and the 198 prosecution witness had been students of the same institution was indicative of the fact that the accused were known to the prosecution witnesses while there was an omission to mention name of the accused persons in the FIR. Secondly, as it was also held that even on the premise that no prior acquaintance was there, the TIP lacked promptitude as was conducted after an unexplained delay of more than 4 months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 123 - Cited by 760 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State vs Sidhartha Vashisht And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

Private Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Controller and Ors. ; Page 0019 R v. R. Turnbull 63 Criminal Appeal Report 132; Budhsen and Ors. v. State of UP ; Duraipandi Tewar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ; Hari Nath and Anr. v. State of UP ; Bollavaran P N Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. ; Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra ; Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi v. State of Maharashtra ; The King v. Thomas Dwyer and Allen Ferguson (1925) 2 K B 799; Sharad Birdi Chand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra ; Ramgopal v. State ; State of H P v. Om Parkash ; Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari v. State ; Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan JT 2000 (7) SC 549; Emperor v. Ardali Mian AIR 1933 Patna 496; Jagdeo Singh v. Emperor 24 Cr L J 69; Sukhram v. State of M.P. 1989 C C Cases 135 (SC); Zahira Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 2004 (2) SCC 158; Satyajeet Banerjee v. State of West Bengal ; Tokh Ram v. State 1982 Cr L J; P Varadrajulu Naidu v. King Emperor 2nd 42 Mad 885; Kessowji Issur Great Indian Peninsula, 34 Indian Appeals 115 : 2nd Vol.XXXI PC 381; Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh ; Empress of India and Anr. 2nd 5 ALL.218; Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bimal Krishna Sen and Anr AIR 1963 SC 316; Ukha Kohle v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1531; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal ; Bir Singh and Ors. v. State of UP ; Rajeshwar Prasad v. State of W.B. AIR 1965 SC 1887; M P Lohia v. State of West Bengal ; The King v. Parke (1903) K B 432; Ramchander v. State of Haryana ; Emperor v. Ram Page 0020 Singh AIR 1948 Lah.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 3 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

Yogesh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 30 November, 2021

10. In his cross-examination, PW-3 resiled partly from the statement he made during his examination-in-chief. However, there appears to be no reason in law why the entire testimony of PW-3 ought to be effaced or entirely and completely disregarded as unreliable on this ground because during his examination-in-chief, PW-3 correctly identified the Appellants [Ref: Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 1991 (3) SCC 627, as well as, Hari & Anr vs The State of Uttar Pradesh pronounced by the Apex Court on 26.11.2021 in Crl A.186/2018]. His testimony with regard to CRL. A.625/2020 and CRL. A.626/2020 Page 11 of 16 the robbery of the mobile phone of the deceased victim also remained unchallenged and consequently uncontroverted on behalf of the Appellants. He also identified the weapon of the crime as well as the motorcycle. The seizure and recovery have been proved by the testimony of PW-11, which has remained unshaken during the cross-examination. His testimony further proved the seizure of the motorcycle and the recovery of the weapon of the crime i.e., knife. [Ex.PW-11/3 qua Motorcycle; Ex.PW-11/4 qua Mobile phone, and Ex.PW-11/6 qua Knife]
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Mridul - Full Document

Pappu vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 February, 2022

“30. The decisions of this Court referred to in the judgment of my learned brother lay down that this Court does not interfere with the findings of fact unless it is shown that “substantial and grave injustice has been done”. But whether such injustice has been done in a given case depends on the circumstances of the case, and I do not think one could catalogue exhaustively all possible circumstances in which it can be said that there has been grave and substantial injustice done in any case. In the appeals before 50 us the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court do not disclose any such exceptional and special circumstances as would justify the claim made on behalf of the appellants whose appeals we propose to dismiss that there has been a failure of justice in these cases.” 19.5. We need not multiply the case law on the point but may usefully refer to one of the recent decisions of a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Hari & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh: Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018 decided on 26.11.2021. Therein, after referring to the aforesaid enunciations in Mst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 32 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Ganesh Suresh Jadhav And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 April, 2022

The TI parade was held on 01.07.2010 i.e. almost after four months. There is no plausible explanation given by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay in conducting the alleged TI parade. The incident had occurred during night hours on the occasion of Holi festival. The learned counsel for the appellants has, therefore, rightly relied on a judgment in the case of Hari Nath And Anr. Vs State of U.P. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 14. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidentiary value of TI parade is only corroborative in nature. It is only for the purpose to ensure that the investigation is being conducted in the right direction. For admissibility of such evidence, the accused should be unknown to the prosecution witness before the TI parade is conducted. It is also observed that TI parade should be held with reasonable promptitude after the occurrence. Here is SH / SGP 32 of 42 Apeal39.2016Mumbai.odt the case where the prime accused was already known to P.W.1- Narsingh and, therefore, the TI parade was just a farce. As regards rest of the accused, there is no explanation by the prosecution for such a long delay and, therefore, that itself renders the prosecution case unworthy of credit. The evidence on that aspect is unreliable.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next