Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 108 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. & Ors vs Raj Kishore Yadav & Anr on 20 June, 2006

Criminal Case/176/2010 on 27 February, 2015

15. Firstly, while the alleged accident had taken place on the night intervening 01.05.2010 and 02.05.2010, the statement of PW-5 Sh. Aklakh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded only on 04.05.2010 i.e. after two days of the incident. The said delay in recording the statement of an eye witness has, however, remained unexplained on the part of the prosecution and is, therefore, a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution. As per the police report, the complainant/PW-6 Sub Inspector Kashmiri Lal did not find any eye witness of the accident either at the spot or at the hospital and had got the case registered on the DD entry. It is most unnatural conduct on part of the alleged eye- witness to have failed to inform the police about the accident in question or accompany the injured/deceased to the hospital and to have altogether disappeared from the scene, if the alleged accident had in fact occurred in his presence as alleged. In his cross- examination, PW-5 has stated that he had gone to the police station on the next day, i.e. 02.05.2010 or 03.05.2010, with the owner of both the vehicles. However, it has not been explained by the prosecution as to why his statement was not recorded on the said day of his visit to the police station. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that PW-5 Aklakh along with deceased Manmohan was deputed to repair the State v. Raj Kishore FIR No. 176/2010 P.S.: Dwarka North Page 7 of 15 vehicle bearing no. HR 38H 7327 on the date and time of the incident. The alleged Sh. Aslam, owner of the workshop where PW-5 was allegedly employed, who had allegedly deputed PW-5 to repair the said truck has neither been cited nor examined by the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid, the very presence of PW-5 Sh. Aklakh at the spot at the time of accident appears to be doubtful.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Raj Kishore on 18 December, 2015

7.PW­3 in his examination in chief stated that on 27.06.2014 he was posted at Tilak Nagar Circle as constable. He was on duty alongwith ASI Ajaib Singh and Ct. Vikas (DHG). Ct. Vikas was made a decoy passenger. Ct. Vikas took the driver of TSR bearing registration no. DL 1RP 3523 to ASI/ZO Ajaib Singh. Ct. Vikas told them that the driver of the abovesaid TSR refused to go to the place where Ct. Vikas asked him. Thereafter, IO/ZO ASI Ajaib Singh issued challan against the TSR which is already Ex PW 1/A bearing his signatures at point C. Accused Raj Kishore was correctly identified in Court. State Vs. Raj Kishore In his cross examination, he stated that public was present at the spot when the challan was made, however no public witness were joined in the investigation. He did not know which place Ct. Vikas had asked the driver of the TSR to take him. He stated that He did not talk to the accused when the challaning officer was preparing the challan. The challan was issued by ASI/ZO Ajaib Singh. He denied the suggestion that accused had not refused and that no bribe had been demanded from the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Raj Kishore on 15 February, 2010

12. PW-3 Retired SI Jai Singh has proved the mechanical inspection report and PW-4 ASI Sat Pal has proved the registration of FIR. The injuries sustained by the accused has been proved on record by PW-2 who has examined the injured vide MLC Ex. PW-2/A. However, the testimony of these witnesses does not establish the negligence part which perhaps is the gist of the offence under Section 279/338 IPC. PW-1 has not attributed any negligence on part of the accused apart from that he was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed. There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether road on which the offending truck was being driven was one way or two way road. There is no evidence to establish negligence. The accused has put forwarded the defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that the complainant was riding on bicycle and suddenly, he lost balance while he was crossing him. He has also made a suggestion to the said effect during the cross examination of PW-1. The defence put forward by accused is not totally 6/7 7 State Vs. Raj Kishore FIR No.95/98 unbelievable and improbable. The benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused. The accused is, accordingly acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Raj Kishor @ Raju & Etc. on 18 July, 2014

7. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, on the other hand, have submitted that even if it is deemed to be proved that the alleged articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons, yet the offence U/S 411 IPC is not made out, in as much as the articles which were recovered have not been reported to be stolen from the complainant. Ld. Counsels have, in this regard, placed State v. Raj Kishore@ Raju & etc. FIR no. 105/10 PS Kapashera Page 3 of 4 reliance on the statement of the complainant recorded by the IO at the first instance which is Ex. PW4/A. It is submitted that this fact has been admitted by PW4 Avninder Singh also that no complaint recording the recovered articles was filed by him. Also there is not list of additional stolen articles given on a subsequent date on record. Hence, till the time this is proved that these articles were actually stolen from the complainant, they shall not form 'stolen property' and hence Section 411 IPC is not applicable.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Somra Majhi vs Union Of India Through The Director ... on 20 March, 2015

12. On perusal of the records, it is quite evident that there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of disciplinary proceeding till its culmination as the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges by the enquiry officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at paragraph 4 has held that:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Patnaik - Full Document

Raj Kishore vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2024

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Case No.2814 of 2024 (State Vs. Raj Kishore) arising out of Case Crime No.800 of 2021 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj along with impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant will suffer from irreparable loss and injustice."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Dheeraj Singh Bisht vs Chairman Cum Managing Director on 28 June, 2022

In the case of Raj Kishore Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed".
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Maithani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next