Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Mohd. Shahid vs Mcd on 29 September, 2011

State vs . Mohan on 2 July, 2015

23 Accused has also relied upon the case of Mohd. Shahid Vs. State SC no. 27/14 Page 13 of 16 14 [Delhi] 2014 [2] JCC 1305 High Court of Delhi, wherein it was held that no witness was joined despite availability at the time of apprehension of accused and recovery of weapon of offence and also there was no blood on the knife. In the present case no weapon of offence has been recovered, therefore, there is no question of presence or absence of blood on the weapon of offence. The place of arrest of accused in the present case is not so important as to disbelieve the testimony of injured witness PW1. Had the accused been not arrested from the spot as claimed by the prosecution and had he been apprehended from somewhere else, virtually no effect would have been on the veracity of PW1, as PW1 is not a witness as to the place of arrest of accused, therefore, even if it is assumed that the accused was apprehended not from the place as claimed by the police witnesses and he was picked up from somewhere else, virtually no effect is made on the prosecution's case, as the place of arrest of accused is not a deciding factor in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Zahid vs State on 27 July, 2016

8. It has also come on record that the premises of the victim and his brother, where the Slaughtering was being done by them, was sealed by MCD which fact has been, though denied by PW2, but PW3, Mukim is very clear and categorical on this issue and for that matter PW1 has also admitted that his godown, where Slaughtering was done by him, on the ground floor of his house was sealed by the MCD. Testimony of PW1, Samaiuddin further reflects that the premises was desealed but he could not give any reason as to why the seal was removed and on the aspect of extending assurance to the MCD, not to indulge into Slaughtering business anymore, he is evasive. PW1 has also admitted that lot of persons are engaged in illegal Slaughtering apart of him and the Doctors from the Health Department of MCD and police regularly raid the area and challan the violators. PW1 has also admitted that slaughtering was being done on the ground-floor of his house and that is why the premises was sealed by CA No. 23/15 Mohd. Zahid v. State Page No.4 of 9 Mohd. Zahid v. State the MCD for illegal slaughtering. PW1 has also admitted that there is no license for slaughtering business with him. The tone and tenor of the testimony of PW1, that he involved in illegal slaughtering in his premises was sealed by MCD which became functional again, but he has not clearly stated as to how it happened. The appellant has tried to bring on record that he alongwith his friend Amzad were crusaders against the illegal slaughtering and that is the reason why the appellant has been falsely implicated by the Victim in the instant case. This can be inferred from the cross-examination of PW2, who has denied any enmity with Amzad but admitted that Amzad had made complaints of illegal slaughtering and had also in a way conceded that the appellant happens to be the friend of the said Amzad. The conflict of interest is directly evident.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1