Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013
(VI) PW-5 during his cross-examination answered that
he made a call from his office to the police and
thereafter, police officials visited his office and
inquired from him and they recorded the details on a
piece of paper (parchi). However, neither any such
piece of paper bearing the details of the information
provided by the complainant to the police was filed nor
any of these police officials were examined by the IO.
It is also not explained by the prosecution that what
were the compelling reasons under which the legal
proceedings were not initiated by these police officials
after they inquired from the complainant.
(VII) Perusal of the pointing out memo of the spot
Ex.PW-3/A as allegedly prepared at the instance of
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 13 of 28
State v. Amit @ Bhandari
accused shows that it does not bear any name or
signature of independent public witness. The reason
for not joining the investigation to any public person at
that time has also not been explained. It creates
suspicion or veracity of the pointing out memo.
Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 398 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2023
In view of the Judgment titled as Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar
(Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, 1 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, the specimen chart of witnesses examined, specimen chart
1
Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, in Criminal
Appeal No. 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.
Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007
15. Further, in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC
641, it is held as hereunder:--