Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)
State vs . 1. Baijnath Mehto on 24 January, 2011 cites

Mohd Amil & Another vs State on 9 August, 2010

In a recent judgment dated 09.08.2010 titled as Mohd. Zahid & Another vs. State in a Criminal Appeal No. 205/1997 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sh. Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sh. V.K. Jain, it is held that failure of police to reproduce the statement of the complainant in the DD as per rule 24.1 of Punjab Police Rules III 1959 does not affect the credibility of the complainant and/or other eye­witnesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 7 - V K Jain - Full Document

Gopal Krishna Sharma And Others And ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Others on 16 September, 1992

23. Learned defence counsel further submitted that seizure memos in this case were not prepared in the presence of the recovery witnesses. According to PW­9, he obtained the signatures of the accused also on the seizure memos Ex. PW­5/A and Ex. PW­5/B, but these do not bear the signatures of the accused persons Baij Nath and Rajesh. This statement of PW­9 itself creates a doubt and it cannot be relied upon. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment cites as Gopal vs. State of Rajasthan 1988 (3) Crimes
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 117 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next