Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.02 seconds)
State vs . Yogender on 25 January, 2023 cites

Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017

"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2089 - P S Teji - Full Document

Giri Raj Singh Meena vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 January, 2014

20.Further, it is mentioned by the PWs that one pullanda containing case property was seized vide seizure memo. Thus, the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR. In these circumstances, FIR number could not have surfaced on that seizure memo but the seizure memo bears the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged. That being so, benefit arising out of such a FIR No. 166/2022 PS Roop Nagar State v Yogender Page 7 of 8 situation must necessarily go to the accused persons. (Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201)
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 602 - V K Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next