Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.87 seconds)
State vs 1) Dil Bahar @ Babu on 23 November, 2012 cites

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005

It may also be relevant to mention that the fact that the last digit of the IMEI number of the mobile phone make 'Nokia' model 1680 recovered from the possession of accused Dil Bahar is different from the IMEI number as mentioned in the charge sheet and the CDR. However, in view of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State vs. Navjot Sandhu & Other connected matters reported as AIR 2005 SC 3820 to the fact that the last digit of the IMEI number is variable, not much significance can be given to the variance in the last digit of the IMEI Nos. of the mobile phone as mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW­9/A and in the page of the charge sheet.
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 1292 - P V Reddi - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Hari Mohan & Ors on 7 November, 2000

Insofar as site plan Ex.PW­18/A is concerned, it is apparent on going through the same that the same has been prepared by Insp.Bharat Singh (PW­18) at the instance of the complainant, while the scaled site plan Ex.PW­8/A is prepared by the draftsmen at the instance of IO/Insp.Bharat Singh. Further, the contention of the accused that he was not supplied with the copy of the site plan Ex.PW­18/A is also an after thought since during the entire length of trial the accused never raised the plea that he was never been supplied the copy of the site plan Ex.PW­18/A. Lastly, the contention of the defence regarding variance in number of case diaries recorded during the course of investigation can at the most be said to be an irregularity committed during the investigation and does not, in my opinion, constitute a ground for acquittal of the accused. Even otherwise, the law has been settled by way of various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as AIR 2002 SC 142 titled as State of UP vs. Hari Mohan & Ors. and AIR 2004 SC 1920 titled as Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was categorically held that Investigation being defective in nature :29: cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused, more so when a case is made out agianst all or any one of the accused persons. Further, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence and the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation, which would tantamount to plying into hands of Investigating Officer if investigation is designedly defective.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2004

Insofar as site plan Ex.PW­18/A is concerned, it is apparent on going through the same that the same has been prepared by Insp.Bharat Singh (PW­18) at the instance of the complainant, while the scaled site plan Ex.PW­8/A is prepared by the draftsmen at the instance of IO/Insp.Bharat Singh. Further, the contention of the accused that he was not supplied with the copy of the site plan Ex.PW­18/A is also an after thought since during the entire length of trial the accused never raised the plea that he was never been supplied the copy of the site plan Ex.PW­18/A. Lastly, the contention of the defence regarding variance in number of case diaries recorded during the course of investigation can at the most be said to be an irregularity committed during the investigation and does not, in my opinion, constitute a ground for acquittal of the accused. Even otherwise, the law has been settled by way of various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as AIR 2002 SC 142 titled as State of UP vs. Hari Mohan & Ors. and AIR 2004 SC 1920 titled as Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was categorically held that Investigation being defective in nature :29: cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused, more so when a case is made out agianst all or any one of the accused persons. Further, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence and the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation, which would tantamount to plying into hands of Investigating Officer if investigation is designedly defective.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 371 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next