Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 592 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005

S.C. No. 131/10 Fir No. 737/07 State vs . Pawan Kumar 1 /49 on 28 November, 2013

Accused remained with the police in the search and finally S.C. No. 131/10 FIR No. 737/07 State vs. Pawan Kumar 5 /49 dead body of her daughter Anshika was found in a white plastic bag in a vacant plot adjacent to the house of the accused. Initially when the bag was seen it was considered to be a bag of garbage however when it was opened dead body of Anshika was found. She proved her statement recorded by police as Ex. PW 2/A. She also identified the accused in the court. In her cross examination she was confronted with her statement where the time of coming of accused was mentioned as 2.15pm and not 1.30pm. She was also confronted with her statement where trembling of hands of accused while driving the scooter was not mentioned nor the statement that accused had called his mother. Similarly she was also confronted with her statement that accused was not allowing anybody to go to the roof top of the house was not mentioned.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) State vs Kuldeep Etc. on 16 March, 2011

(2) State Vs. Pawan Kr etc. FIR no.435/03 Page No. 26 of 41 apprehended under proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC and they were released on 12.9.03 itself. He further admitted that they are facing trial as an accused in case FIR no. 435/03. He admitted that a compromise has been done between his father and Jai Prakash regarding partition of the ancestral property. From the evidence available on file as well as statements of accused it seems that there is property dispute between the parties and they used to quarrel on that accused and even proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC have been initiated against them. Documents shows that suit for partition had been filed by Jai Prakash accused in FIR no. 434/03 on 22.11.02 which was settled vide deed dated 5.4.04. It has come in evidence that certain complaints were made by Hemlata and Pawan thereafter, but no such complaint has been proved on file by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The suit for partition has been filed by Jai Prakash accused in FIR no. 434/03, on 22.11.02 which was settled on 5.4.04. The present case incident has taken place on 12.9.03 which means that the suit for partition had settled after the present case incident. In FIR no. 435/03 accused persons have examined DW1 Jagdish Chander and he has stated that he has filed civil suit against the accused persons which is pending in (1) State Vs.Kuldeep etc.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs (1) Pawan Kumar Pandey on 7 June, 2012

33 Ld. counsel on behalf of accused persons Pushpender @ Rinku and Sandeep has argued that there is no direct witness to the commission of the alleged offence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The first link in the sequence of events, which is required to be proved is the motive, but there is no evidence whatsoever led by the prosecution in respect of the motive. There is also no prosecution witness examined, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons. The only testimony is that of PW10 Pramod Sehgal, who had deposed that the Indica Car had been hired by accused Sandeep. However, there is no evidence further to show that accused Sandeep had ever travelled in the said vehicle or that he was ever seen in the company of the other accused persons and the deceased. As per the prosecution, Sandeep had been accompanied by accused Pushpender for hiring of Indica Car from PW10 Pramod Sehgal, but PW10 Pramod Sehgal had State v. Pawan Kumar Pandey etc.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan Kumar Etc on 15 July, 2013

5. PW 2 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that in the month of February, 2003, he alongwith complainant had gone to the house of the accused persons bearing no. B­169, Jawahar Park whereon a deal regarding sale of said house by the accused persons to the said Anil Kumar was finalized. Accused persons had stated to the complainant that they had mortgaged/hypothecated the documents in respect of said property for an State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc 3/20 FIR no. 532/03 amount of Rs.50,000/­. Accused Dinesh had stated that he would transfer the property in the name of complainant. Anil Kumar had paid Rs.2.5 lacs to the accused persons who were present at their house and accused Dinesh had got prepared a receipt of the same vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He had also signed the said receipt at point C. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Pawan Kumar S/O Naresh Kumar on 25 July, 2011

9. PW 7 Ct. Bhim Singh deposed that on 02.04.2010 on secret information accused Pawan Kumar was apprehended from bus stand of 429 and one knife was recovered from his pant pocket. And on State Vs. Pawan kumar, SC No.77/10 (Contd. Pg No. - 5) 03.04.2010 on the pointation of accused Pawan Kumar two boys Shankar @ Madari and Sapan Dass were arrested and one LG mobile phone was recovered from accused Sapan Dass. In cross examination he deposed that the IO prepared site plan himself and the knife was having blood stain when it was sealed though presently knife do not have any blood stain. And accused was arrested in the evening time though he do not remember the exact time but he do not remember whether IO had asked any public person to join the investigation. He further deposed that sketch of knife was prepared in his presence however blood stains were not shown on the sketch of the knife.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan Kumar on 14 July, 2010

8. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that in this case prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The injured Naresh Kumar was examined as PW­1. The eye witness Chander Kala was examined as PW­4. Both of them have fully supported and corroborated the story of the prosecution and also supported each other. PW1 stated that on 22.8.05 he had exchanged hot words with Deepak who is younger brother of the accused. On next day i.e.23.8.05 at about 9 AM he was returning to his house from his office his mother was standing outside the gate of their house. When he was going inside his house after parking motor cycle accused Pawan FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.3/13 called him, he went near him accused was standing at the gate of his own house. Accused abused him and told him that he is not going to spare him as he had quarrelled with his brother Deepak. On this he turned back and started moving towards his house. Accused caught hold of his hand and dragged him inside his house. He was having a knife in his hand and attacked on his neck, left hand and chest. He raised alarm on hearing noise his mother came there she also raised noise the accused ran away on seeing the mother of the injured. He further stated that his mother took him out of the house and thereafter he became unconscious.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan on 28 July, 2012

Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 31.07.2008 at about 11 p.m on receipt of DD no.10A ASI Sukhbir alongwith Ct. Jai Bhagwan reached in DDU Hospital where MLC no.14466/08 of injured Ritesh Nagar was collected in which the injury was stated to be grievous. Thereafter DD no.11A State Vs. Pawan FIR no.440/08 Page No. 1 of 19 was received wherein it was reported that patient has been referred to RML Hospital. IO reached in RML Hospital where the statement of injured was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A. In his statement, injured Ritesh Nagar has alleged that on 31.7.08 at about 11 p.m he alongwith his friend Ramzan were going to Payal Hotel for fetching milk where Pawan and his associates started beating Ramjan. He intervened and then Pawan and his associates gave base ball bat blow on his head. He was also given danda blows by his friends. He sustained injury on left hand thumb. His friend Ramjan took him to DDU Hospital. On this statement IO made his endorsement Ex.PW8/C on the basis of which the present case was registered vide FIR no.440/08. The investigation was done and accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the accused persons were challaned to the court.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan Kumar on 24 September, 2013

2.45PM when I was going to Khazani Institute for study. The accused pulled me inside a grey colour car and put some intoxicating substance on my nose and I fell unconscious. After some time I regained my senses but he broke the SIM of my mobile and then took me to Haridwar where we State vs. Pawan Kumar SC No. : 152/2013 FIR No. : 190/2012 PS : Sangam Vihar Page No. 1 stayed for 5 days. Every day he used to commit sexual intercourse with me saying that if he would have a child and then no one could separate us. He also used to threaten that if I would complaint to my parents he had 50 boys who would kill my brother. Once he had suspicion that police might have been informed so he brought me to Dehradun. He used to take the medicines for enhancing sexual power and used to harass me day and night. I was kept in a lodge at Dehradun. One day in the morning, I ran away and the accused followed me. I had Rs. 500/- with me which he wanted to take but I told him that the said money is given to me by my grand father. I reached Vikas Nagar but he caught hold of me. He used to pressurize me to put sindoor on my forehead so that people would think that we are married. On my refusal he used to beat me. He continued committing intercourse with me. He used to slap me and would beat me quite often.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan Kumar on 11 April, 2013

5. PW­2 Sh. Bijender Kumar who is the complainant deposed that 4 FIR No:25/2002 State Vs. Pawan Kumar on 08.02.2002 he was operating a machine in the Pawan Printers. The break of machine was failed due to which his hand crushed into the machine and he sustained injury on his hand. Thereafter, he was taken to Shakuntala Nursing home by the brother of the accused where police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. Site plan was prepared by the police at his instance Ex.PW2/B. He further stated that he was asking the owner for the last 8­10 days prior to the incident to get the machine repaired but they did not do so. The incident took place due to break failure of machine.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Pawan Kumar Fir No. 367/00, U/S : ... on 16 May, 2014

6. HC Vijender Singh (PW­3) has proved the proceedings conducted by him on the spot alongwith IO/SI Ashish Kumar and Ct. Ramesh. They noticed a bus bearing registration No. DL­1PA­4384 and a TSR bearing No. DL­1RC­4639 in accidental condition. By then, the injured persons were shifted to HRH by PCR. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Ashish went to HRH after leaving Ct. Ramesh at spot and collected MLCs of the injured persons. Case was registered, site plan was prepared. Both the vehicles were seized vide seizure memo as Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B, driving license of injured/ deceased Rehmat Ali was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/C, insurance of TSR was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW3/D. Post mortem over the bodies of Rahmat Ali and Varsha were got conducted. Notice u/s. 133 of M.V. Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle namely Sh. Pranav Kumar, in compliance thereof, he produced the bus. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW3/E & Ex.PW3/F. The RC and insurance certificate of the offending vehicle i.e. bus was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW3/G & Ex.PW3/H. The driving license of accused was also taken Page No. 3 State Vs. Pawan Kumar FIR No. 367/00, U/s : 279/337/338/304 A, PS Model Town into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/J. Both the vehicles were got mechanically inspected. The spot was got photographed from different angles. The photographs of the TSR and offending bus are collectively Ex.P1 to Ex.P­7. This witness was not cross­examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite giving an opportunity in this regard.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next