Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13138 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007

Fir No.820/2007; Ps Kalkaji ; State vs . Sanjay And Anr. 1 Of 36 on 7 December, 2018

In the year 2006, her husband beaten her and she left her matrimonial house and reached to her parental house.   Her 'Stridhan' was also lying at her matrimonial home. She never asked for return of 'Stridhan' orally   from   her   in   laws.   Then   she   made   complaint   at   CAW   Cell,   Amar FIR No.820/2007; PS Kalkaji ; State  Vs. Sanjay and  Anr.                                    4 of  36                    Colony   dated   23.08.2006   which   was   Ex.PW1/A.   Then   in   CAW   Cell proceedings she   and     her husband arrived at a compromise and she along with him started living in a rented accommodation separately at Patel Nagar. But as conduct and behaviour of her husband towards her did not mend, she again   filed   complaints   in   CAW   Cell,   Amar   Colony   Ex.PW1/B   and Ex.PW1/C. The present FIR was lodged against the accused persons. During investigation   police   recovered   part   of   her   'Stridhan'   vide   seizure   memo Ex.PW1/D which she got released on Superdari.   Police inquired her in the present case and recorded her statement.   Thereafter, witness was cross­ examined by Ld. APP for the State  and stated that it was correct that in CAW Cell proceedings she had given list of her dowry articles Ex.PW1/E. It was  correct  that her husband  used to demand Indica Car  or  Rs.3,00,000/­ (Three Lakhs) from her and said that if she did not bring the same he would not   let     her   alive   in   the   matrimonial   house.   It   was   correct   that   when subsequently she started living with her husband at Gole Market, he left them on 26.05.2007 without telling anything. It was correct that when she went to her matrimonial house to look her husband, her mother in law and  Nanad threw her out of the house and did not let her enter and said that if she would come here again, they would kill her. It was correct that she told the police in her statement when she used to live with her husband at Gole Market, he used to force her to drink wine and when she used to woke up she would find her clothes in disturbed condition. It was correct that she had stated to the police in her statement  that on 01.08.2007 her husband sent her six photographs showing   her   smoking   and   drinking   wine.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ajay @ Sanjay on 27 August, 2014

State vs. Ajay @ Sanjay (FIR no.447/11 PS Sultanpuri) 1 of23 Rajbir Singh were on patrolling duty on 28.04.12 and when they reached near Ramleela Ground, Mangol Puri, an informer gave them information that a person would come from the side of industrial area, Phase I, Mangol Puri after 30­45 minutes and would go towards D Block with ganja. SI Jaspal Singh apprised the DO on telephone about the secret information and asked to tell SHO also. Thereafter, he asked 4­5 passers by to join the investigation but no one agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. The police officials moved towards the destined spot i.e., Near MCD Park, Industrial Area, Ph­I and took position behind the wall. The informer pointed out towards a person at 8.10 pm coming from flyover side he was apprehended and he disclosed his identity as Ajay @ Sanjay. He was carrying a plastic katta on his head and another plastic katta was in his right hand. Notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act was served upon him but he reposed full faith in police. Ct. Ampit took the search of SI Jaspal Singh but nothing incriminating was recovered and thereafter, SI Jaspal Singh searched the kattas carried by the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sanjay on 9 November, 2009

34. PW-17/HC Rajender Singh, who was MHC(M), has deposed that W/SI-Harjinder Rana had deposited two sealed parcels and -:13:- State Vs. Sanjay one sample seal of M B Hospital with him, on 14.11.03 and he made entry in respect of deposit of these articles in register no.19 at sl.no.399/03. She again deposited two sealed parcels along with sample seal, on 19.11.03 and he made entry in respect of deposit of these articles in register no.19 at sl.no.406/03.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sanjay on 15 July, 2013

24 From the testimony of PW1, it is evident that accused has not come to their house to take Asha(deceased) in his presence. He categorically admitted that he came to know that on 15.03.05, accused came to their house and took his sister. He further admitted that he was not present in the house at that time. Only PW2 has deposed that accused came to take her daughter and she sent her daughter with accused. Except the mother of Asha(deceased), prosecution has not examined any other witness to substantiate that accused had actually visited the house of Asha(deceased) on 15.03.05. Even, when the IO was specifically put the question as to whether he made any inquiry, whether accused had visited Mukundpur on the date of incident or not. He stated that he did not made any investigation from family members or neighbours of Asha(deceased). He admitted that he did not verified from father of deceased as to whether accused visited her house on 15.03.05. There is FIR no. 137/05 18/19 15.07.2013 State Vs. Sanjay no supplementary statement of any other witness to show that accused actually visited the house of Asha(deceased).
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 25 January, 2016

3.1 PW1, Kuldeep Singh, mentioned that he is the owner of tempo bearing registration no. DL1LB4879 and on 13.12.2000, he produced the aforesaid tempo before the IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW1/A. 3.2 PW2, Veerpal, mentioned that in the year 2000, he was working at Petrol Pump, Dhaula Kuan, and on 11.12.2000 at about 11.00 pm, after finishing his duty, he was coming to his house and when he reached in Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, he found lying one mobile phone and the same was picked by him. Thereafter, he informed his wife and neighbours about the mobile phone. Further, he searched the owner of the said mobile phone, but no one found. Thereafter, he went to police station and handed over the said mobile phone to police, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW2/A. 3.3 PW3, Ravinder Singh, deposed on the lines of his complaint/statement Ex. PW3/A, on the basis of which FIR was Page No. 4 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sanjay And Anr on 24 July, 2024

21. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued that the statement of the complainant is not supported/corroborated by any other independent witness. They have, thus, argued that the said testimony of the complainant cannot be made the sole basis for the conviction the accused. However, the said argument advanced by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons does not hold ground and is liable to be STATE VS. SANJAY & ANR E-FIR NO.00590/2018 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 13 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.07.24 14:31:43 +0530 discarded. The evidence is required to be weighed and not counted. It is well established rule of law that quality and not quantity of evidence matters. In each case the court has to consider whether it can be reasonably satisfied to act even upon the testimony of a single witness for the purpose of convicting a person.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sanjay on 17 September, 2009

"10. The next part of the prosecution case is relating to the search and recovery of Rs. 500/- from the accused. One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person in that the searching Officer and other assisting him should give their personal search to Page 11 of 13 12 FIR No. 227/04 State vs. Sanjay the accused before searching the person of the accused. (See AIR 1969 SC 53 : (1969 Cri L.J. 279), State of Bihar V/s Kapil Singh). This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object which was brought out by the search. There is no evidence on record whatsoever that the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused before the latter's person was searched. Besides the above, it is in the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 that the accused wanted to know the reason for which his person was to be searched and the reason for such search was not intimated to the accused. No independent witness had witnessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that the search was illegal and consequently the conviction based thereon is also vitiated".
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sanjay & Anr.; Fir No. 355/07 on 12 March, 2010

3. For proving its case, the prosecution produced ten witnesses. 3A. PW1, complainant Raj Kumar Bhati, stated on the lines of his first statement Ex.PW1/A dt. 02.11.2007, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Apart from that he stated that site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared and in the month of April 2008, he was informed by police about the recovery of his vehicle. Thereafter, he went to PS Link Road, Ghaziabad, UP alongwith police staff of PS Gandhi Nagar and identified the stolen vehicle. IO seized his car and he took it on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW1/C. Further, he proved the RC of the vehicle State vs. Sanjay & Anr.; FIR No. 355/07 4 Ex.PW1/D. Complainant further correctly identified the vehicle Ex.P­1 in the court and filed its photographs Ex. P­2 and Ex. P­3. 3B. PW2, HC Meena, proved the FIR Ex. PW2/A. 3C. PW3, SI Chavi Ram Singh, testified that on 07.04.2008, FIR no. 152/08, 153/08, 154/08 and Nil/08 were registered at PS Link Road against the accused persons who were apprehended by SI Dharmender and other police party and the stolen car bearing reg. no. DL­3CU­3071 was recovered from their possession. Thereafter, he conducted the investigation and accused persons disclosed that they have stolen the aforesaid vehicle from the jurisdiction of PS Gandhi Nagar. Therefore, he informed PS Gandhi Nagar about the recovery of the car and handed over the documents Ex.PW3/A to the IO of this case. 3D.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next