Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.53 seconds)
State vs R.N.Sharma on 8 February, 2010 cites

State Of Punjab vs Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar And Anr on 18 December, 1998

To same effect reliance was placed upon State of Punjab Vs Jit Singh & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 549] 24 On perusal of records, this court is of considered opinion and finds itself in agreement with submissions made by learned counsel for accused to the effect that most of the prosecution witnesses have made substantial improvements while deposing in court as compared to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. PW.5,PW.6 and PW.10 have apparently 22 State Vs R.N.Sharma made substantial improvements and infact have substantially changed facts as had been mentioned by them in their statements recorded by the police. Not only this, there are some glaring contradictions in testimony of these witnesses interse. 25 It cannot be lost sight of that the accused had been placed in column no.2 of the charge sheet and was subsequently summoned by the court. Investigating Officer during course of his testimony had admitted that as there was no direct evidence against the accused, he was placed in column no.2 and challan was accordingly filed in court. 26 All these gains credence in view of fact that name of the accused had not cropped up as the culprit during early stages of investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 57 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Gurmej Singh vs Jit Singh And Others, Etc. on 29 January, 1992

To same effect reliance was placed upon State of Punjab Vs Jit Singh & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 549] 24 On perusal of records, this court is of considered opinion and finds itself in agreement with submissions made by learned counsel for accused to the effect that most of the prosecution witnesses have made substantial improvements while deposing in court as compared to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. PW.5,PW.6 and PW.10 have apparently 22 State Vs R.N.Sharma made substantial improvements and infact have substantially changed facts as had been mentioned by them in their statements recorded by the police. Not only this, there are some glaring contradictions in testimony of these witnesses interse. 25 It cannot be lost sight of that the accused had been placed in column no.2 of the charge sheet and was subsequently summoned by the court. Investigating Officer during course of his testimony had admitted that as there was no direct evidence against the accused, he was placed in column no.2 and challan was accordingly filed in court. 26 All these gains credence in view of fact that name of the accused had not cropped up as the culprit during early stages of investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - R C Patnaik - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Ors vs R.B. Sharma on 10 August, 2004

1 Challan in this case had originally been filed against accused R.N.Sharma and accused B.D.Sharma. As per order dated 20.9.07 passed by learned Court of Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, MM, Delhi, in pursuance to directions issued by Hon'ble Ms Justice Reva Khetrapal in WP 1863/06 on 11.7.07, trial of accused 1 State Vs R.N.Sharma B.D.Sharma was separated and consequently,the case was committed in respect of accused R. N. Sharma. Investigating Officer was directed to file supplementary challan as and when accused B. D. Sharma recovered. Accordingly, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 127 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next