Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana vs Manoj Kumar on 2 November, 1993

Sc No. 112/06, Fir No. 375/04 1 State vs Manoj Etc. on 2 January, 2008

18. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsels. I am of the opinion that it is not necessary that the testimony of the prosecutrix must in all cases be supported by medical evidence. The testimony of the prosecutrix can be disbelieved only if medical evidence goes contrary to her version. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no injury on the person of the prosecutrix as per MLC. I am of the opinion that injuries on the person in inner and outer part of the vagina of the prosecutrix would only SC No. 112/06, FIR No. 375/04 10 State Vs Manoj etc. appear when there is resistance from the prosecutrix. It is pertinent to note that in the present case both the accused persons forcibly took the prosecutrix and her sister in a room and the prosecutrix appears to be totally helpless at that time. In her testimony PW1 Kumari Santosh has not testified anywhere that she tried to resist the rape. Her sister Albeli (PW5) who was only nine years of age at that time tried to raise noise but her mouth was gagged. In such circumstances it is not unnatural that the prosecutrix surrendered out of helplessness and did not resist. Therefore lack of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not unnatural. As per MLC Ex.PW2/B the hymen of the prosecutrix was found ruptured.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No. 79/04, Fir No. 162/99 1 State vs Manoj Kumar Etc. on 21 August, 2007

2. SI Satender Sangwan (PW7) arrested accused Yogesh on 4.5.1999 from Gali No. 13, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW7/2. He was produced before Sh. J. P. Narain, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in fully muffled face. PW7 moved an application for conducting test identification of the accused. However accused Yogesh refused to take part in TIP proceedings stating that he does not want to take part SC No. 79/04, FIR No. 162/99 5 State Vs Manoj Kumar etc. in TIP proceedings. The proceedings are Ex. PW6/3. Sh. J. P. Narain, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi sent this application to his Link Magistrate Sh. Praveen Kumar for conducting detailed TIP proceedings. Even before Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate accused refused to take part in TIP proceedings. The proceedings before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate are Ex. PW6/4. It is alleged that complainant met the Investigating Officer per chance in court premises and she identified accused Yogesh. Therefore Investigating Officer recorded the statement of complainant Ms Abha Maheshwari. Investigating Officer also moved an application for conducting test identification of the stolen chain on 13.5.1999. Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (PW6) conducted TIP of the stolen chain on 31.5.1999 vide his detailed proceedings Ex. PW1/2. In TIP proceedings, complainant Smt. Abha Maheshwari correctly identified her chain.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj & Anr. on 7 July, 2007

12. Further, the police officials PW6 ASI Azad Singh was the alleged recovery witness of the prosecution who allegedly State vs. Manoj etc. FIR No.50/00 BR 13 apprehended the accused Manoj and recovered an amount of Rs,450/­ from his possession, also could not get support for its trustworthiness from the other police officials who participated in the investigation of the matter as there were found material discrepancies in his testimony with the depositions of other police official SI Rajender Singh examined as PW7 on many counts, particularly, it was observed that ASI Azad Singh deposed in the court that his statement was recorded by the IO SI Rajender Singh on the spot when he handed over the accused Manoj with the alleged recovered case property who was examined as PW7.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj on 9 March, 2010

In the present case, as per rukka after the apprehension of accused IO HC Ram Karan had requested 4-5 passersbys to join the police proceedings but all left the spot without telling their names and addresses Page 5 of 12 6 FIR No. 170/04 State vs. Manoj after giving reasonable excuses not joining the police proceedings. It is not worthy that HC Ram Karan has not made a note of the excuses given by the passersby in the rukka Ex. PW-1/B. This failure on his part goes to suggest that he did not make sincere efforts to join the passers-by in the police proceedings. At least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, HC Ram Karan could have very well served the passersby the notice in writing requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face action 187 IPC in as much as in the present case there was no possibility of accused escaping his apprehension/arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said time, accused stood already apprehended by the police. Also in the present case, time of apprehension of accused is a routing evening time and it cannot be said that accused was apprehended at odd hours. Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witness in the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution in view of the following case laws.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj 1 Out Of 11 on 9 July, 2009

9. The PW-5, SI Hem Karan had apprehended the accused alongwith Ct. Jai Kumar and PW-3,Ct. Ali Sher while PW-7, SI Vijay Pal had taken over the investigations of the case after registration of the FIR. Thus PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 are material witnesses in the present case. The PW-5, SI Hem Karan, who was heading the raiding that had apprehended accused Manoj deposed that on that day he was a member of one of the three raiding parties organized by Insp. Rakesh Giri in connection with case FIR no. 147/02 upon receiving information about assembling of five persons for purpose of committing dacoity. 3/4 passersby were asked to join investigations but none agreed. All the accused, including accused Manoj, were found making plans for dacoity and were apprehended by different members of State Vs. Manoj 4 out of 11 5 the raiding party. The PW-5 apprehended accused Manoj with the help of Ct. Jai Kumar and Ct. Ali Sher and recovered one country made pistol loaded with cartridge from front dub of his pant. The PW-5 proved sketch of fire arm and cartridge as Ex-PW-5/A and there seizure memo as Ex- PW-5/B. He also proved rukka as Ex-PW-5/C and stated that after the registration of case further investigations of the case were handed over to SI Vijay Pal. He identified the accused as well as the case property namely fire arm as Ex.P-1 and cartridge as Ex.P-2.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Manoj Kumar on 21 April, 2007

Prosecutrix had initially made a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate that she was 18 years of age and she had got married the accused out of her own will and she was living with the accused as husband and wife. She even State Vs Manoj Kumar 3 stated in the said statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that her guardians have falsely reported to the police that the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years. The prosecutrix stated in the said statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that everything was done with her consent.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Manoj Kumar on 10 March, 2008

5. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that no corroborative, consistent, reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence. Prosecution has produced and examined only three witnesses out of six witnesses listed in the list of State Vs. Manoj Kumar 4 FIR No.: 16/06 witnesses. No plausible explanation has been placed by the prosecution for such non-production and non-examination of the remaining witnesses. IO HC Banne Singh of the case has neither been produced nor examined by the prosecution. Non- examination of IO causes prejudice to the accused and it is a serious omission. In my this view I am fortified by case 1998 (1) Crime 709 wherein it was held that "non- examination of IO in a criminal trial causes serious lacuna in prosecution case and prejudice to accused. The tendency of IO's to keep away from the court is not good,"
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next