Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
State vs . Beeru & Anr. on 29 January, 2021 cites

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chadha vs Adm (Hq) Revenue Department, Govt. Of ... on 17 August, 2009

that the FIR number and other particulars of the present case are mentioned on the said documents. No explanation has come from the prosecution to justify as to how the FIR number surfaced on those documents which were prepared prior to the registration of the case thereby substantiating the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted at the police station and nothing was recovered from the spot from the possession of the accused persons. This fact casts a doubt upon the testimony of PWs and entire prosecution version because if the said document was prepared prior to the registration of the present case, then surfacing of the FIR number as well as other particulars of the present case on the said documents at the time of its preparation is not possible. At this stage, reference can also be made of a case titled as Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn. 1987 CC Cases 585 Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that the mention of FIR number on recovery memo etc which were prepared prior to lodging the FIR creates doubt and benefit should go to the accused.
Central Information Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 898 - Full Document

Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017

"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2089 - P S Teji - Full Document

Nallapati Sivaiah vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P on 26 September, 2007

The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 928 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1