Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 296 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Gujarat vs Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Ors on 5 August, 1996

State vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 17 March, 2015

FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 2/31 It is also alleged that on 22.04.2000 her husband Rajesh alongwith 3-4 persons came to the G.B Pant hospital and dragged her outside. They pulled her by hair, twisted her hand and took her towards the main gate. There, her Mama Dhanpat Singh suddenly came and let her free from the clutches of her husband and three to four other persons who accompanied her husband. All these persons misbehaved with her Mama also. Complainant had filed a written complaint dated 23.04.2000 in police station regarding the abovementioned incident. Chowki Incharge had also misbehaves with the complainant by saying that her father-in-law had given her social status. Sh. Mehar singh who was present at that time in the police Chowki misbehaved with her and she had separately filed the complaint before the DCP, Central regarding the same.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rajesh And Ors(3) on 28 November, 2023

During cross examination, he stated that on receiving information from duty officer, he immediately went to the spot on government bike and reached within 15-20 minutes. He could not recall if DD entry was prepared or not. He could not recall the exact time when he received information from duty officer or the time when he reached the spot. Public persons were present near the spot but they did not join investigation. Neighbours were present near the spot but they also did not join investigation. Private photographer was not called at the spot. However, photographs were clicked at the spot by the witness on State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rajesh Kumar on 5 September, 2023

FIR No.164/2014 (State vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.) PS Sagarpur During his cross examination, PW3/ IO/ Inspector Inspector Gyan Prakash, he stated that on the day of incident, he gave the information about the incident to SHO PS Tughlak Road through his mobile phone and he also made the departure entry for the patrolling duty. He admitted that other public persons were also present in the park. He stated that pictures of glasses and some gift packs were show on the opposite side of the seized playing cards. He stated that he was not aware whether the seized playing cards are easily available in the market. He further stated that he tried to get some public persons to join the in- vestigation, but no one agreed. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated as they were sitting in the park and were taking sun bath as it was winter time. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were having their lunch as they were on job on that day. He denied the sugges- tion that he intentionally did not file medical report of accused Harbansh Kumar as he was suffering from high blood pressure and was recommended by the doc- tor for admission in the hospital. He stated that he did not remember the cur- rency note numbers of seized money and no CCTV camera was found nearby the place of incident at that time.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 2 January, 2010

15.DW3 has deposed that on 10.30 PM on 30.05.1996 the police came at the main bus stop inside village Nathu Pura near shop of Thukral Buildes. He went there to enquire about the same and the police men present there informed that some incident had taken place. Accused Rajesh was present there and his Baniyan was torn and there were injuries on his body and his uniform shirt of a Ct. were also torn. The police STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajesh @ Ors. on 22 November, 2019

1) The date of commission : 23.05.2011 Of offence 2) The name of the complainant : Sh. Vikas S/o Sh. Chaman 3) The name & parentage : (1). Rajesh Of accused S/o Sh. Moti Ram (2) Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Moti Ram 4) Offence complained of : 325/34 IPC 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 6) Final order : Convicted 7) The date of such order : 22.11.2019 Date of Institution : 29.09.2011 Judgment reserved on : 22.11.2019 Judgment announced on : 22.11.2019 FIR No. 194/11, State Vs Rajesh & Ors 1/12 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs . State Of Bihar And Anr., (2000) 9 Scc 82; ... on 24 December, 2018

11. The defence counsel has also argued that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness despite the fact that the area where the incident taken place is a residential area and it has come in the testimony of witnesses that public had gathered there. Generally, it is seen that in todays scenario, the people does not wish to be associated with any police investigation and they may tell things to the police officials informally but does not wish to be named as a witness which makes it impossible for the prosecution to bring on record any independent witness apart from the parties in question to establish the case. The FIR No. 91/07 State v. Rajesh & Ors. 8 of 12 PS Anand Parbat accused cannot be allowed to take the benefit of this when the testimony of the injured persons inspires confidence and the same can be relied without the examination of independent witness.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State vs 1. Rajesh on 4 February, 2015

11. PW4 Vikas deposed that on 20.2.2011 at about 6:30 pm, he along with his friend Mohan(PW7) after attending a marriage were coming out of marriage pandal on motorcycle driven by Mohan(PW7). When they SC No 42/14 State vs Rajesh &Ors (Page 5 of 15 ) D.O.D 04.02.2015 FIR No. 80/11 P.S Narela u/s 308/323 /34 IPC had proceeded for some distance, someone hit Vikas(PW4) from behind on his head with an iron rod. He got down from the motorcycle and took a round and saw that it was accused Pony @ Pawan , who had hit on his head. Vikas (PW4) went towards accused Pony @ Pawan and he gave another blow with iron rod on his head. Vikas (PW4) became semiconscious as a result of blows and fell down. Huge crowd gathered there. Mohan (PW7) took him to SRHC Hospital. In the hospital he was not in a position to give any statement to the police and Mohan (PW7) had lodged a complaint. His statement was recorded by the police. There was a quarrel between Sandeep (JCL) and him some days prior to the present incident. Present incident had taken place a JCL Sandeep wanted to take revenge from him and Sandeep (JCL) is the son of brother of accused Pony @ Pawan. PW4 was cross examined by ld Adll PP for state as he was resiling from his previous statement qua identification of accused Rajesh @ Monu. PW4 was cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused persons also.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . : Rajesh Kumar on 26 May, 2010

4. In order to substantiate the charge prosecution has examined eight witnesses. PW1 is K.C. Varshey, Sr. Scientific Officer of FSL Malviya Nagar, who has testified that he had examined the case property i.e. country made pistol Ex. P1 and which was found to be in working condition. He proved his report Ex. PW1/A. PW2 is HC Ashok Kumar, who has testified that on 02.08.98 when he was posted at PS Kashmere Gate, he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Harish Kumar and were checking the buses coming from Trans Yamuna area. PW2 says that three boys got down from one bus and upon apprehension, their names were revealed to be Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar and Siraj Khan and on conducting of personal search, one golden chain was recovered from the possession of accused Rajender Kumar Tiwari from the right side pocket of his shirt. The said chain was kept in a match box and was sealed with the seal of HCR and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. PW2 further says that all the three accused persons were interrogated and upon which they made disclosure statement Ex. PW2/B, 2/C and 2/D. PW2 further says that accused even pointed out the place of occurrence and as per their disclosure statement, pointed out memo Ex. PW2/E to 2/G were FIR No. 258/98 3 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Oths.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next