Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.55 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sukhbir Jain And Anr. vs State on 26 May, 1992
26. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for the accused persons
vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1 -(Sohan Lal- father of the
complainant); PW 2 - Rohini @ Dolly (complainant) and PW 10 - Smt Krishna
Devi (mother of the complainant) who are material witnesses in this case is not
reliable and trustworthy as these witnesses have made material improvements
and embellishments in their depositions before the court as compared to their
statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC as well as their failure to specify
the alleged instances of harassment, torture and beating of the complainant
(PW 2- Rohini @ Dolly) on ground and in connection with dowry demands and
these allegations of harassment and torture are vague, general in nature,
unspecific and bald and in support of this contention reliance has been placed
on the cases reported as Sukhbir Jain & Anr Vs State (supra); Anil Kumar
Vs State of Punjab (supra); Rohstash Vs State of Haryana (supra);
Bhupender @ Kale Vs State (supra); Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs Bharati
(supra); State of NCT of Delhi Vs Rakesh & Ors (supra) and Shiv Kumar
Vs State (supra).
Anil Kumar Soni vs The Managing Director, Punjab ... on 25 July, 1991
26. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for the accused persons
vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1 -(Sohan Lal- father of the
complainant); PW 2 - Rohini @ Dolly (complainant) and PW 10 - Smt Krishna
Devi (mother of the complainant) who are material witnesses in this case is not
reliable and trustworthy as these witnesses have made material improvements
and embellishments in their depositions before the court as compared to their
statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC as well as their failure to specify
the alleged instances of harassment, torture and beating of the complainant
(PW 2- Rohini @ Dolly) on ground and in connection with dowry demands and
these allegations of harassment and torture are vague, general in nature,
unspecific and bald and in support of this contention reliance has been placed
on the cases reported as Sukhbir Jain & Anr Vs State (supra); Anil Kumar
Vs State of Punjab (supra); Rohstash Vs State of Haryana (supra);
Bhupender @ Kale Vs State (supra); Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs Bharati
(supra); State of NCT of Delhi Vs Rakesh & Ors (supra) and Shiv Kumar
Vs State (supra).
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Rakesh & Ors on 15 May, 2012
26. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for the accused persons
vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1 -(Sohan Lal- father of the
complainant); PW 2 - Rohini @ Dolly (complainant) and PW 10 - Smt Krishna
Devi (mother of the complainant) who are material witnesses in this case is not
reliable and trustworthy as these witnesses have made material improvements
and embellishments in their depositions before the court as compared to their
statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC as well as their failure to specify
the alleged instances of harassment, torture and beating of the complainant
(PW 2- Rohini @ Dolly) on ground and in connection with dowry demands and
these allegations of harassment and torture are vague, general in nature,
unspecific and bald and in support of this contention reliance has been placed
on the cases reported as Sukhbir Jain & Anr Vs State (supra); Anil Kumar
Vs State of Punjab (supra); Rohstash Vs State of Haryana (supra);
Bhupender @ Kale Vs State (supra); Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs Bharati
(supra); State of NCT of Delhi Vs Rakesh & Ors (supra) and Shiv Kumar
Vs State (supra).
Bhupender @ Kale vs State on 15 May, 2012
26. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for the accused persons
vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1 -(Sohan Lal- father of the
complainant); PW 2 - Rohini @ Dolly (complainant) and PW 10 - Smt Krishna
Devi (mother of the complainant) who are material witnesses in this case is not
reliable and trustworthy as these witnesses have made material improvements
and embellishments in their depositions before the court as compared to their
statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC as well as their failure to specify
the alleged instances of harassment, torture and beating of the complainant
(PW 2- Rohini @ Dolly) on ground and in connection with dowry demands and
these allegations of harassment and torture are vague, general in nature,
unspecific and bald and in support of this contention reliance has been placed
on the cases reported as Sukhbir Jain & Anr Vs State (supra); Anil Kumar
Vs State of Punjab (supra); Rohstash Vs State of Haryana (supra);
Bhupender @ Kale Vs State (supra); Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs Bharati
(supra); State of NCT of Delhi Vs Rakesh & Ors (supra) and Shiv Kumar
Vs State (supra).