Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)

The State Of Karnataka By Karwar Town Ps vs Santosh Balakrishna Kudtalkar on 19 June, 2009

6.3 PW3/HC Hotam deposed that he was on emergency duty with PW-5 ASI Raj Kumar and he alongwith PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar reached at spot where PW-1 complainant Vijay Kumar met them who produced the accused Santosh and the complainant got recorded his statement regarding attempting theft in his house to FIR No. 259/2021, PS Rajinder Nagar State Vs. Santosh 3/6 VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR Date: 2023.09.15 PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar by accused who has apprehended by him at spot and PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar prepared rukka and gave him for registration of the FIR and he went to P.S. and got registered the case and after registration of the FIR, he again reached at spot and he handed over the copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s- 65 B Evidence Act to PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar and PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar inspected the site at the instance of PW-5 IO ASI Raj Kumar and prepared site plan and the accused was arrested and the accused was interrogated who made his disclosure statement.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - N Ananda - Full Document

S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972

10. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (CRI.) 258 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts where the onus of proving ingredients of the offences is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of the offences, thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1302 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1