Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Sushil Sharma on 19 February, 2007

State vs . Sunil Sharma on 22 January, 2008

Further, PW5 HC Ajay Pal was the IO of the case who at the instance of the complainant reached at the spot and searched for the accused as well as the case property. However, later on the State vs. Sunil Sharma FIR no.340/05 5 accused was arrested in another case with case property on which he filed an application for production warrants of the accused and thereafter, he took the case property from PS Partapupr and deposited the same in PS Farsh Bazar. Thus, the witness was nothing to say about the occurrence or about the guilt of the accused and also came to the witness box to prove the documents prepared during the course of investigation by him and other proceedings.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sushil Sharma & Ors on 24 February, 2011

If we see the site plan it shows that there were two shops, one is STD & Photostate shop and other is Tour and Travel on the side of shop in question. Even one of the photograph EX.P­1which were placed on record shows that there was an electrostate shop beside the shop of Friends Rui Machine. The photographs placed on record some how shows that complainants were in possession of the shop at one point of time but in the entire prosecution evidence no concrete evidence came as to who trespassed into the property. There are material contradiction in the evidence as to how the accused persons trespassed into the property. As per statement of PW1, the act of removal of belonging of the shop of complainant continued for various days but despite this no action was taken by the police and which was never the case of the FIR NO. 135/99 State Vs. Sushil Sharma & Ors. 5/6 prosecution at the first instance. As per original case of the prosecution whatever happened, happened in the midnight of 3/4 March 1999 and the present case was registered on 04­03­1999 that is there and then. Nothing incriminating could be recovered from the spot nor the goods of the complainant were recovered from the premises in question, though as per PW1 the same were lying in the shop itself and even no such allegation was made in the complaint by the complainant that there goods are lying in the shop itself. Despite the facts that goods were alleged shifted from there, even after various days no public witness, photographs placed on record showing all these things happening. Neither the supplementary statement of witnessese were recorded in this regard and it is very surprising that complainant kept on watching the same as mute spectator and no second complaint was filed in this regard. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per complainant accused persons were found at the spot when police visited there in the midnight of 3­4 March 1999 but no efforts were made by the police to get the shop opened to verify that whose goods are lying at the shop. Had there been any collusion between the police and accused persons they would not have registered the FIR there and then. The registration of FIR on the spot itself which is undisputed in itself raises a presumption that a prompt action was taken on the complaint of complainant by the police and it shows that accused persons were not at the spot when police visited there. In these circumstance, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons that they trespassed into the property as there is likelihood that complainant himself on his own vacated the property and later on they lodged this complaint due to which nothing could be found at the spot nor any independent public witness could be joined in the investigation. Hence in these circumstance, accused persons deserve benefit of doubt, hence accused persons are acquitted for the offence U/s 448/34 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sunil Sharma & Anr. on 8 August, 2022

State Vs. Sunil Sharma & anr. GUPTA 2022.08.08 16:34:27 Page 11 of 13 +0530 12 also handed over by the complainant on 10.05.16 i.e. almost after 01 and a half year of lodging the FIR. All these recoveries seems to be subsequent and an afterthought. No FSL result has been obtained by the IO with respect to the blood stains on the clothes seized vide memo Ex. PW2/4 that the blood on the said clothes is of the date of the incident i.e. 30.08.14.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1 Vikas Yadav on 30 May, 2008

The prosecution has also relied upon the authority State Vs Sushil Sharma reported in 2007 Vo.l II AD (CR) (DHC) 289 where the deceased Naina Sahni after being killed in 1085 gruesome manner, bullets were noticed embedded in her skull and neck region and was thereafter burnt in a Tandoor. It is claimed that in this case also appellant was given death penalty on the ground that the act of the appellant reflected extreme depravity when he killed Naina Sahni and dealt with her body in a gruesome manner which must have shocked the conscience of the community at large. The prosecution has further relied upon the authority reported in 1999 SCC Page 581 wherein the two convicted accused had after raping and murdering one girl had thrown her dead body into a septic tank. This post­crime conduct of the convicts was commented upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these words ''the accused did not even stop there but they exhibited the criminality in their conduct by throwing the dead body into the septic tank 1086 totally disregarding the respect for a human body''. The Spl. PP for State has prayed that both the accused deserve extreme penalty of death.
Delhi District Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 27 March, 2024

1. This petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail that was granted to the respondent no.2 vide Order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in BA No.289/2021, titled as State v. Sunil Sharma.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

State vs Sunil Sharma on 13 May, 2025

In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that he absconded during trial of the case wherein FIR No. 198/18 PS Vikas Puri, titled as State vs. Sunil Sharma. It is alleged that since the accused was concealing himself and was avoiding the execution of warrants, this Court had, by order dated 16.11.2023 declared the accused as an absconder. On the basis of the said allegations, it is alleged that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 174A of Indian Penal Code.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Sharma vs State on 9 January, 2020

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to quash the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Special Judge NDPS-02, (central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No.82/15, P.S Crime Branch, in case titled as State vs. Sunil Sharma, whereby an application bearing no. M.A. No. 36/2016 Under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was Crl.M.C.1851/2017 Page 1 of 3 disposed off.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document
1