Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)

State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011

He stated that he raised alarm FIR No. 428/15 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 5/34 upon knowledge of his purse being stolen, but the bus was not stopped in between Lado Sarai and Saket Metro Station. He stated that they told to the driver to stop the said bus at Saket Metro Station because they had called to police on 100 number and stated that they alighted from the said bus at Saket Metro Station. He admitted that he told to the police officials that passengers assaulted the accused Mukesh inside the said bus. He stated that at around 15­20 persons had apprehended accused Mukesh inside the said bus and they had assaulted accused Mukesh for 5­10 minutes. He stated that it took around 10­15 minutes to reach Saket Metro Station from Lado Sarai. He stated that the accused had showed the said blade and tried to escape from the said bus before apprehension by passengers. He stated that around 10­15 passengers alighted from the said bus at Saket Metro Station with them and all passengers had held and alighted accused Mukesh from bus. He stated that the said bus went away after alighting them at Saket Metro Station. He stated that police reached at Saket Metro Station within 2­3 minutes after their de­boarding from the said bus. He again stated that PCR van was already parked there and they called the police official from there. He voluntarily stated that his friend called to police on 100 number inside the bus. He stated that he got recovered the said purse from right side pocket of pant of accused in the presence of said passengers. He stated that he alongwith his friend and 2­3 passengers had caught hold of accused at the time when police officials arrived at Saket Metro Station.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 472 - D Bhandari - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988

Reliance may be placed upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680, Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988)4 SCC 551), Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 588, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2020 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1102 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2003

27. As far as the non joining of independent public witnesses/the bus passengers including the one who allegedly saw the accused removing the purse from the complainant's pocket or its conductor or driver is concerned suffice would be to say it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity/number of witnesses. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses to be examined for proving a particular fact ( Sunil Kumar V. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi SC 2004 (1) Criminal CC 524, Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 251 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ambika Prasad Rajwade And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 6 September, 2005

81). Further the court/judges cannot sit in an ivory tower of isolation and ignore the fact that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to wash off their hands/desist from joining/assisting the investigation. Civilized people withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante and they keep them selves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. (Ambika Prasad and others Vs. State, FIR No. 428/15 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar 22/34 (2002) 2 CRIMES 63 SC) and (AIR 1988 SC 696).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors on 31 January, 2003

28. There is no requirement of law that everyone who has witnessed the occurrence, whatever there number be, must be examined as a witness. (Amar Singh V. Balwinder Singh (SC) 2003 (1) RCR Criminal 701). In Jawa­ har v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 336 it was further observed that (1) It is very hard these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal in­ vestigation and (2) Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any incon­ venience for the sake of society.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 416 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next