Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.29 seconds)Section 489 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 489C in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sans Pal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 8 January, 1998
109.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi 1999
Cri. L.J.19' wherein it has held that :
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
108.In case titled as 'Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.127',
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that large number of people were present at the
time of recovery No independent witness produced and no attempt made to join
independent witness Statement of official witnesses could not be relied.
Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 1995
66.Another two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as AIR 1995 (SC) 1930
title as Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been
held in para no.11 that :
Sahib Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1996
67.In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as AIR 1997 (SC)
2417 title as Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, it has been held that :
Jagdish Prasad Shastri vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 October, 1970
69.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that Ex.PW8/DC is the first application
which was moved by the PW8/I.O. on 1.2.2004 for P.C. remand which was
declined by the Ld. Duty M.M. and there is no mention of any alleged recovery
against the present accused Zikrur Rehman, so the request for P.C. remand was
refused and the present accused was sent to J.C. upto 03.02.2004 through
application Ex.PW8/DD. It is very surprising that on 03.02.2004, another
application for PC remand was moved by the PW8/I.O. Ex.PW8/DE wherein the
alleged recovery has been shown against the accused Zikrur Rehman on 1.2.2004
from his shop. This was done by the I.O/PW8 after manipulating the signed
papers which were obtained by the I.O./PW8 on 1.2.2004 when he was picked
from his house. Moreover, as per this witness, the present accused Zikrur Rehman
was arrested at the instigation of accused Rahisuddin. However, in the alleged
recovery memo Ex.PW8/F, nothing is mentioned regarding the arrest of present
accused at the instigation of accused Rahisuddin. This witness is also not sure
when he visited the house of the present accused on 3.2.2004 or 4.2.2004 as per his
cross examination on page no. 1 dated 17.5.2012, thus, PW8 being a sole eye
witness qua the present accused and arresting officer is not a reliable witness from
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others
SC No.54/2004 28/45
the careful perusal of the cross examination of this witness, so this witness cannot
be relied being a sole witness and regarding this, ld. counsel for accused rely in the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as AIR 1994 SC 1251 titled as
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. has held in para no.6 that :
State Of Haryana vs Inder Singh And Ors. on 29 January, 2002
70.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 537
titled as State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh & Ors. has held that the principle for
relying the sole eye witness in three way and has held that: