Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra vs Sk. Bannu And Shankar on 12 September, 1980

State vs . Shankar on 31 August, 2018

".......On 08.06.2016, in the noon time, some  quarrel   as   well   as   manhandling   happened  between   me   and   accused   Shankar,   who   is  present   in   court   today   (correctly   identified).  He   told   me   that   he   would   see   me.  In   the  evening, I was selling toys in Connaught Place,  Janpath Road. Accused Shankar came to me.  At   that   time,   he   was   drunk.   He   started  manhandling   with   me.  Meanwhile,   Shankar  took a green colour glass bottle of Sprite and  hit   the   same   on   his   head   due   to   which   the  bottle was broken. With the broken bottle, he  hit   me   on   my   neck   on   the   front   side   on  account of which I sustained injuries and fell  down.   Public   persons   gathered   over   there.  Public persons covered my neck with a cloth  and took me to Lady Harding Hospital, where  I was medically treated. Police reached there  and   I   told   the   facts   to   the   police.   Police  recorded   my   statement,   which   is   Ex.PW9/A  ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Shankar FIR No. 181/2016, PS: Connaught Place                                                  Page 10 of 21 and   bears   my   thumb   impression   at   point   A.  The   clothes   which   were   worn   by  me   at   that  time, soaked with blood. I can identify my said  clothes, if shown to me. My wife Sunita used  to live with me. However, later on, she left me  and   started   living   with   Shankar.   However,  Shankar   started   getting   drunk   and   started  harassing her. On this, she returned to me. At  the time of the incident, she was present with  me. She saved me from the accused and also  took me to the hospital......."
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Accused To Acquittal. It Has Been Held In ... vs State on 2 April, 2019

21. In view of the above discussion, court is of the considered opinion that story of the prosecution has become doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the State v. Shankar U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 13/14 FIR No.84/18 PS Mundka case, accused Shankar is acquitted for the charges punishable U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act levelled against him.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shankar on 6 October, 2022

14) Moreover, in the considered opinion of this court the identification of the case property is not established. During the examination of PW1 one unsealed sample quarter bottle was produced. If the sample was sealed by the IO then the sample brought in the court must have been sealed. Further the remaining case property is stated to be destroyed. The order of concerned authority authorizing destruction of the case property has not been proved on record. There is no photograph of the case property nor there is any video recording as to the destruction of the case property. There is no presumption that there must have been a case property which must have been destroyed in the absence of the photographs or videography or order of Excise Commissioner authorizing the destruction of the case property. Accordingly, the identification of the case property not established and this fact is fatal to the case of the case of prosecution CIS No. 5273/2019, State Vs. Shankar ; FIR No.88/2019; PS. Kirti Nagar; U/s. 33 Delhi Excise Act 7/9 CNR No. DL WT02-009965-2019 is going to the roots of this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shankar on 1 September, 2022

13) Further the case property was sent for chemical examination on 17.01.2020 while the same was seized on 03.01.2020. The entire paper formalities were completed in 03.01.2020 only. When the entire codal formalities were completed on 03.01.2020 than the delay of around 14 days in sending the exhibits for chemical examination is beyond comprehension. Again the police official having the possession of the seal was posted in the same police CIS No. 2559/2020, State Vs. Shankar ; FIR No.04/2020; PS. Kirti Nagar; U/s. 33 Delhi Excise Act 6/9 CNR No. DL WT02-005174-2020 station where the case property was lying. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property and benefit of this laxity on the part of investigating officer should go to the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: State vs Shankar on 22 October, 2013

4. Today matter was listed for PE however, no PW was present. Record reveals that complainant/injured Pawan Sharma is not traceable. Today FIR No. 432/07 State Vs. Shankar 2/6 also, summons as were issued against him have been received back with the report that he is not residing at the address available on record. I have also gone through report on the summons dated 24.04.2012, 24.07.2012, 11.10.2012, 13.03.2013, 26.03.2013, 11.04.2013, 27.07.2013 etc. The summons were directed to be executed through the office of DCP/SHO/IO however on every occasion the summons were returned back with the same report that the injured could not be traced.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shankar on 8 January, 2016

10. The next defence is that the public witnesses have not been joined in the investigation. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it appears that no sincere efforts, have been made to join the public persons in the investigation. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police witnesses. Not even a single public witness has been examined by the prosecution nor joined in the investigation and no plausible reason has been put forward by the prosecution witnesses that for what reason they are unable to gather support from public or independent witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. Although, it can be said that it was a chance recovery but the incident had occurred from in a busy locality and therefore, it cannot be said that no public person would have been available at the spot. Although prosecution witnesses have asserted that they implored some of the public witnesses to join the investigation but they refused to participate in the investigation. This explanation tendered by the prosecution FIR no. 333/11 State Vs. Shankar 4/7 witnesses does not seem to be tenable as neither the details of those public persons have been brought on record nor any legal action was taken against those persons under relevant sections of law who have declined to assist the police in investigation. The failure on the part of the police personnels goes to suggest that they were not interested in joining the public persons in the police proceedings. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story in view of the following case law.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shankar on 5 July, 2012

6. PW-1 and PW-3 are the recovery witnesses. As per version of PW3 HC Mahender Singh, on 11.04.2006 he was posted at PS Kirti Nagar and on that day he alongwith Ct. Lachhu Singh were standing in uniform in front of Kumar Flour Mill. In the meantime, they saw one person having a plastic cane in his hand going towards Jhuggi, Kirti Nagar and on seeing the police party, he returned back from the side of Rama Road. On suspicion, accused was apprehended and on inquiry his name was revealed as Shankar. On checking, the plastic cane was found containing illicit liquor. Further, as per his version, DO was accordingly informed regarding recovery of liquor and after some time ASI Kali Charan reached the spot and they handed over the accused as well as the case property to the IO. IO recorded the statement of Ct. Lachhu Singh. As per his version, IO had asked 4-5 passers by to join the investigation but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and FIR No. 161/03 State Vs. Shankar ­: 4 :­ addresses. Thereafter, liquor of cane was measured and it was found containing 12 bottle out of which one bottle was taken out as sample. Sample bottle as well as case property was duly sealed with the seal of KC alongwith form M-29 and after using the seal, the seal was handed over to him. Thereafter, case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that IO had prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Lachhu Singh and also prepared site plan. Thereafter, accused was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was got conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D. PW3 correctly identified the plastic cane Ex.P1. As PW1, HC Lachhu Singh has also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW3, in his deposition hence, is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next