Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.50 seconds)
State vs Bablu on 12 December, 2025 cites

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. vs Firm Gobardhan Dass Kailash Nath on 7 March, 1973

State vs Bablu & Kailash ​FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave ​ Page 7 of 11 2025.12.12 05:18:05 +0530 A reading of his deposition reveals that he has given a clear, coherent, and categorical account of the incident. He deposed regarding the missing motor, his immediate search, and his arrival at the spot where he found the accused persons in custody of his property. There is no ambiguity in his identification of the accused persons or the case property (Ex. P1). Crucially, nothing material has been elicited during his cross-examination to shake his credit or veracity. The defence failed to point out any significant contradiction between his statement to the police (Ex. PW-1/A) and his deposition in court. Further it is pertinent to note that no suggestion was put to PW-1 regarding any previous enmity or dispute with the accused persons. In the absence of any prior animosity, there is absolutely no reason for a private individual to falsely implicate two strangers by planting his own expensive water motor on them. The testimony of the victim stands on a high pedestal and inspires the confidence of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 279 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988

17.​ Non-Joining of Independent Public Witnesses and the "Fear Factor" : The defence argument regarding the absence of public witnesses is liable to be rejected when viewed against the specific backdrop of this case. In the present case, the reluctance of the public is not just a general theory but a documented fact. The Externment Order (Ex. A-4) against accused Bablu specifically records, "...The witnesses are unwilling to depose in public against him because of the apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person & property at the hands of the Respondent... Due to his continuous and persistent activities, the Respondent can be called a dangerous person...." If the Addl. DCP, in administrative proceedings, found that the accused is a "Bad Character" (BC) who terrifies the locality to the extent that no one dares to testify, it would be unreasonable for this Court to expect a random passerby at 07:00 PM to courageously join the arrest proceedings of such a person. The fear of the accused serves as a valid and reasonable explanation for the IO's inability to join public witnesses. Further the superior courts have long recognized the reluctance of the public to join police proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, observed that "...It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident... Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1334 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Smt. Nidhi Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh 25 Wpc/1847/2018 ... on 11 December, 2018

The witnesses are unwilling to depose in public against him because of the apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person & property at the hands of the Respondent and his conduct definitely requires stringent view. Keeping in view the evidence brought on file i.e. notice, reply of the notice, statement of Prosecution Witness and other evidence adduced during the course of proceedings, I come to the conclusion that he is not likely to improve till stringent measures are taken against him. His activities in the area of N.C.T. of Delhi are causing and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the respectable citizens. His continuous presence in the area is leading to alarm and danger in the minds of Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH State vs Bablu & Kailash ​FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave ​ Page 4 of 11 SINGH Date:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1