Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 472 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 September, 2011

State vs Ashwani @ Anwa on 13 July, 2012

The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sarphool on 29 March, 2012

19. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only. The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Anil Kumar Jain on 1 May, 2012

(2) No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only. The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Shashi Kumar @ Rahul Etc. on 19 December, 2016

In case of PREM SINGH VS. STATE 1996 Cri. LR3604 (DELHI), it has  been observed as under:­ "Kalam   Singh  has   to admit  that  at  the   time   of   arrest and recovery of knife, there was a lot of   rush   of   public   at   the   bus   stop   near   Subhash   Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join   any public witness in the case while according to   Kalan Singh, no public person was present there.   It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a   bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no   person   present   at   a   crucial   time   like   7:30   pm   when   there   is   a   lot   of   rush   of   commuters   for   boarding   the   buses   to   their   respective   destinations.  Admittedly, there is no impediment   in believing the version of the police officials but   for   that   the   prosecution   has   to   lay   a   good   foundation.     At   least   one   of   them   should   have   deposed   that   they   tried   to   contact   the   public   witnesses   or   that   they   refused   to   join   the   investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Dalip on 28 November, 2013

14. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after use and seals remained with the junior police official only. Since the handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved and hence it cannot be ruled out that police had the opportunity to tamper with the case property as the seals were in their possession. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sonu on 26 April, 2012

The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next