Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Krantikumar Rangrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 19 January, 2016

Ghansham Dattatraya Tambde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2026

6. (2023) 15 SCC 521 55/69 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:28:29 ::: H.C. SHIV 912.app474.17.doc said clothes were on the person of A-1 to A-3 and said clothes were seized, was put to these witnesses. PW-10 has specifically deposed that he had sealed the said clothes with wax seal and said fact was specifically recorded in the respective Seizure Panchnamas. As noted above, PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-2 and A-3. That apart, unlike in the case of Arjun Rangrao Patil (supra), the clothes of A-1 to A-3 were seized immediately after the incident. Said clothes were identified by PW-3 and PW-10. In so far as the seizure of the clothes of PW-4 is concerned, her testimony to that effect and identification of her clothes by herself, is not at all challenged in her cross-examination. Moreover, PW-10 has supported her. There is nothing indicating that it was a created evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Vinayak Madhav Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2026

6. (2023) 15 SCC 521 55/69 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:28:21 ::: H.C. SHIV 912.app474.17.doc said clothes were on the person of A-1 to A-3 and said clothes were seized, was put to these witnesses. PW-10 has specifically deposed that he had sealed the said clothes with wax seal and said fact was specifically recorded in the respective Seizure Panchnamas. As noted above, PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-2 and A-3. That apart, unlike in the case of Arjun Rangrao Patil (supra), the clothes of A-1 to A-3 were seized immediately after the incident. Said clothes were identified by PW-3 and PW-10. In so far as the seizure of the clothes of PW-4 is concerned, her testimony to that effect and identification of her clothes by herself, is not at all challenged in her cross-examination. Moreover, PW-10 has supported her. There is nothing indicating that it was a created evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Sagar Dattatraya Tambde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 26 March, 2026

6. (2023) 15 SCC 521 55/69 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:28:45 ::: H.C. SHIV 912.app474.17.doc said clothes were on the person of A-1 to A-3 and said clothes were seized, was put to these witnesses. PW-10 has specifically deposed that he had sealed the said clothes with wax seal and said fact was specifically recorded in the respective Seizure Panchnamas. As noted above, PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-2 and A-3. That apart, unlike in the case of Arjun Rangrao Patil (supra), the clothes of A-1 to A-3 were seized immediately after the incident. Said clothes were identified by PW-3 and PW-10. In so far as the seizure of the clothes of PW-4 is concerned, her testimony to that effect and identification of her clothes by herself, is not at all challenged in her cross-examination. Moreover, PW-10 has supported her. There is nothing indicating that it was a created evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Dattatraya Ramchandra Tambde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2026

6. (2023) 15 SCC 521 55/69 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:28:36 ::: H.C. SHIV 912.app474.17.doc said clothes were on the person of A-1 to A-3 and said clothes were seized, was put to these witnesses. PW-10 has specifically deposed that he had sealed the said clothes with wax seal and said fact was specifically recorded in the respective Seizure Panchnamas. As noted above, PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-2 and A-3. That apart, unlike in the case of Arjun Rangrao Patil (supra), the clothes of A-1 to A-3 were seized immediately after the incident. Said clothes were identified by PW-3 and PW-10. In so far as the seizure of the clothes of PW-4 is concerned, her testimony to that effect and identification of her clothes by herself, is not at all challenged in her cross-examination. Moreover, PW-10 has supported her. There is nothing indicating that it was a created evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Ghansham Dattatraya Tambde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2026

6. (2023) 15 SCC 521 55/69 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 02:03:20 ::: H.C. SHIV 912.app474.17.doc said clothes were on the person of A-1 to A-3 and said clothes were seized, was put to these witnesses. PW-10 has specifically deposed that he had sealed the said clothes with wax seal and said fact was specifically recorded in the respective Seizure Panchnamas. As noted above, PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-2 and A-3. That apart, unlike in the case of Arjun Rangrao Patil (supra), the clothes of A-1 to A-3 were seized immediately after the incident. Said clothes were identified by PW-3 and PW-10. In so far as the seizure of the clothes of PW-4 is concerned, her testimony to that effect and identification of her clothes by herself, is not at all challenged in her cross-examination. Moreover, PW-10 has supported her. There is nothing indicating that it was a created evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Ghansham Dattatraya Tambde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2026

6. (2023) 15 SCC 521 55/69 ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 02:03:13 ::: H.C. SHIV 912.app474.17.doc said clothes were on the person of A-1 to A-3 and said clothes were seized, was put to these witnesses. PW-10 has specifically deposed that he had sealed the said clothes with wax seal and said fact was specifically recorded in the respective Seizure Panchnamas. As noted above, PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of A-2 and A-3. That apart, unlike in the case of Arjun Rangrao Patil (supra), the clothes of A-1 to A-3 were seized immediately after the incident. Said clothes were identified by PW-3 and PW-10. In so far as the seizure of the clothes of PW-4 is concerned, her testimony to that effect and identification of her clothes by herself, is not at all challenged in her cross-examination. Moreover, PW-10 has supported her. There is nothing indicating that it was a created evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document
1