Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
State vs Kallu Etc on 25 January, 2024 cites

State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Shobha Enterprises 58 Wa/642/2018 ... on 7 January, 2019

3) In support of its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses i.e. PW 1 ASI Padam Singh who has proved the entry no.19 vide SI. No.2134 dated 12.02.2015 regarding the deposition of case property in the malkhana, PW 2 Sh. Ghanpat Gujjar (complainant in the present case), PW 3 HC Anil Kumar (second IO of the present case), PW4 Mohd. Imran (public witness), PW 5 Mohd. Isha (public witness) and PW 6 ASI Jeet Ram (first IO of the present case). After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused persons were recorded. The accused persons denied all the allegations and opted not to lead State Vs. Kallu and others; CIS No. 66452/2016; FIR No. 111/15; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 457/380/411/34 IPC 2/7 CNR no. DLWT02-004778-2015 defence evidence.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 305 - Full Document

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

"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that 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 shopkeepers 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
1