Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 434 (3.64 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jagdish on 22 March, 2010

State vs Jagdish on 30 August, 2024

23 Be that as it may, the Prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by recovery witnesses who were police officials to join public witnesses in the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Further, there is nothing on record to show that recovery witnesses / police officials had served any notice under Section 160 Cr.PC upon the UMESH Digitally signed by UMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.30 17:01:02 +0530 FIR No. 144/2018 State Vs. Jagdish 12 of 21 PS Lodhi Colony persons who refused to join the investigation Same has not been done in the present case. Joining of independent witnesses would have given credibility to the recovery proceeding. Therefore, non-joining of independent witness casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Jagdish on 10 November, 2014

11. As per PW6­Sh. Rama Shankar, Record clerk, BJRM Hospital, he had been deputed by Ms to depose on behalf of Dr. Anand who has left the BJRM hospital and whose present whereabouts were not known to the hospital. He had worked with DR. Anand in the hospital and he is aware of his handwritings and Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 7 signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Jagdish Kumar S/O Tej Ram, on 21 July, 2011

7. At this, one Rajender @ Raja, who was running a tea shop on the road, tried to save Peera Ram. At this, Vinod stated that he was also the sympathizer of Peera Ram, therefore, he should also be taught a lesson. Many public persons had also gathered there in the meanwhile and somebody from the crowd stated, that the accused persons be caught hold off. At this, in order to scare the crowd, Vinod assaulted one person on his head with a lathi blow, who started running towards his house and all the three accused persons ran after him and Vinod stated that " yeh sala Raghubir ka pakka himayati lagta hai, bachne na paye, ishko khatam kar State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 6 do". Thereafter, Surender @ Sonu assaulted the said person with the iron pipe on his head and Jagdish assaulted him on his face with some sharp edged weapon.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish on 26 May, 2022

Complainant stated the registration no. of the offending vehicle on the basis of which notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon the registered owner Shri Niwas which is Ex. PW4/C. The owner Shri Niwas alongwith accused and one relative reached police station where the injured identified the offending vehicle as well as the accused. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. He further deposed that the accused as well as the owner of the vehicle had informed him that they had been falsely implicated in the present case as their vehicle was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. He further deposed that FIR No. 125/15 State vs. Jagdish 12 / 15 accused failed to provide any documentary proof in his defence. The offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CR 7721 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D bearing signature of witness at point A. Before seizure of offending vehicle in the present FIR, it was also seized in some other matter bearing no. 45/15 during investigation and the documents of offending vehicle were already seized in the said FIR. Copy of the seizure memo of FIR No. 45/15 is Mark-X. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Mechanical inspection of the vehicle was conducted. The witness identified the photographs of the offending vehicle which are Ex. P-1 (colly).
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Case Of "Sadhu Singh vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 By The ... on 13 May, 2015

6. During cross examination, he stated that he had left for patrolling at about 11.00 am. He did not remember whether he had made entry in the daily State v. Jagdish U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act 3/9 FIR No. 212/2003 PS Paschim Vihar register. He admitted that public persons were present at the spot. He admitted that he had not given any notice to the public persons who had refused to join the investigation. He remained at the spot till 5.30 pm. He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated as he had refused to come to the police chowki when he was called 2-3 days prior to the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of the accused were taken on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared at the police station.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish @ Kalu on 1 February, 2013

9. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that all the witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other and proved the story of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that in the present case no public persons was joined in the recovery/investigation, therefore it creates the shadow of the FIR no. 366/10 State vs. Jagdish PS Amar Colony Page 5 of 11 doubt upon the story of the prosecution.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish on 19 December, 2012

14. In the instant matter, IO and other police official have submitted that IO had requested some passersby/residents to join the investigation. However, no notice was served to public persons who refused to join the investigation. It is note worthy that I.O. had not made any serious endeavour to join the passers­by in the investigation of the case. Also as per rukka IO did not serve written notice to the passersby who refused to join the police proceedings. At least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, IO could have very well served the passers­by with notice in writing FIR no. 329/10 State vs. Jagdish PS Amar Colony Page 7 of 11 requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face action u/s 187 IPC in as much as in the present case there was no possibility of accused escaping his apprehension / arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said time, accused stood already apprehended by the police. Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witnesses in the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution in view of the following case laws.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Case Of "Sadhu Singh vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 By The ... on 25 June, 2018

8. During cross examination, witness admitted that the spot was surrounded by residential area. Public persons were coming and going from the spot. No notice was served upon them who refused to join the investigation. IO had not made any alteration or deletion of those documents. It was natural dark but State v. Jagdish U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 4/9 FIR No. 154/13 PS Uttam Nagar street light was there but not shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/C. He returned the seal on the next day. No handing over or written memo was prepared. Case property was brought to PS on rickshaw. He denied the suggestion that accused was picked from home and falsely implicated in this case and alleged recovery was fake and planted.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Jagdish S/O Sh. Hira Lal, on 21 January, 2012

7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for accused persons and also perused the entire material placed on the record carefully and I find that the prosecution has been successfully proved its case by proving the guilt of the accused persons. Firstly, in their respective testimonies, all the three material witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have fully State Vs. Jagdish etc. (SC No.65/11) Page No. 8 of pages 9 corroborated not only with the story of prosecution but they themselves have corroborated with each other. They have correctly identified the accused persons as well as the weapon of offence Ex.P-1. Moreover, in their respective statements recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons have admitted their guilt, so I hold the accused persons guilty for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 308/341/34 IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted therein under.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next