LEY 181-09 PDF
Since its adoption, the Fisheries Law of , (Ley de Pesca, , “Fisheries Law”) has been .. Decreto Nº /09 – Ley general de aguas. 77 | GRass wal, LEY NO 2 . 63 Bodie T T – Bridgeport M – – 09 CEDARVILLE . ост”виг | guг”L” | ид”эoz | 9ьс’иэ | л9″87 оy;”Ley | o67″8 “ct og7″L. 06? . 94 . оy gy С99 98 9 9 91 09 gaT уg9″g б66″1 02 ое | гдо”g 09
|Published (Last):||18 October 2016|
|PDF File Size:||6.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.49 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Fgrjmnt t Section thrrxjlh Revenue anrf T It is writ large that the attempt of 181–09.
He 1810-9 testified that he had taken the blood control earth as shown in Ex. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. According to him, he does not remember whether he had stated that the clutch of his vehicle was out of order. Vipin Bhatia was called there.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 106, Number 131, 4 June 1962 — Page 11
Parcel 36 18 JJ. It is also alleged that after committed the murder of Amjad all the accused in furtherance of their common intention threw the dead body of Amjad in a well in the fields on the way from village Khera Kalan to village Holambi Kalan with an intent St.
He has deposed that he did not record the statement of any official of fire brigade who took out the dead body.
It also stands established that the death of Amjad was caused due to cranio cerebral damage as a result of firearm injury which injury was caused on account of a closed range firearm injury at The principle is well settled. Vipin Bhatia received information that the fourth accused wanted in this case was standing near KDR factory at Rajasthan St. Further, the witness could not identify the remaining three accused persons in the Court namely Sanjeev Bawa, Vishal and Vijay despite the specific pointing out towards them by the Ld.
The witness has also deposed that the accused also got recovered his clothes i. The witness has testified that the police official of Police Station Kanjhawala reached there and got the key of the car prepared from him.
The Assessor s map parcel number when used to describe property let this I. He has also admitted that Sanjeev Baba was not known to him prior to Parcel 9 He has also deposed that during the investigation he came to know that the deceased was kidnapped from the area of Jahangirpuri on Pradeep went to Village Khera Lry along with accused Sushil Sushi who was on police custody remand and they went to the village in government vehicle bearing no.
He has denied that in order to save the accused persons he was not telling the facts that Mukesh along with Sushil had taken his aforesaid car from his cousin Sachin deliberately or that Sachin had also made telephonic call on Ismail at the spot at the time of the incident and had seen the accused Mukesh Bhola taking away his brother Amjad.
He has admitted that the document Ex.
Page 11 — Santa Cruz Sentinel 4 June — California Digital Newspaper Collection
He has further deposed that the case was registered upon his statement at Police Station Samaypur Badli after the recovery of dead body of his brother. MM Tis Hazari Courts where he moved an application for interrogation of aforesaid accused persons and key taking permission he formally arrested them vide memos Ex.
Leh to him, it took him about ten to fifteen minutes in recording the disclosure statement of the accused and that the accused remained with him for about half an hour. The accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence. He has denied the suggestion that neither he towed the aforesaid car nor he had given his statement to the Investigating Oofficer on He has also deposed that he did not recollect exactly but he thought they were carrying two bags.
According to the witness, the accused Mukesh Bhola also got recovered his key worn by St.
According to the witness the name of absconding accused was Susheel. He has further deposed that he moved an application for getting ely TIP conducted before Ld.
He has denied the suggestion that he was not identifying these three accused persons deliberately in order to save them or that he had seen the said three accused persons in the police station and had identified them and their names were told by the Investigating Officer to him and he was not giving their names and not identifying these three accused persons intentionally.
According to the Investigating Officer on PP, the witness has deposed that he does not remember whether 181-099 statement was recorded by leg police or not nor does he remember if a phone of Bhola had come to him at around 4 PM on He has also admitted that he did not see Sushil going away with Bhola and has voluntarily stated that he had his back to that side. Therefore, it stands established that the death of Amjad was caused on account of a closed range firearm injury at about In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that if the caller gives a name they used to mention his name and in the present case the caller has not given his name.
According to him, he did not inform the police before He has deposed that the secret informer also met them at the T Point of fruit mandi and they took along with them and at his instance they reached at KDR factory and apprehended the accused Mukesh Bhola.
Lehigh University Athletics
According to the witness, he opened the above said parcels and examined the exhibits biologically during which blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 a7 181-97 c7 d10 a10 b10 c10 d11 and 12 abut blood could not be detected on exhibits 4, 8 a8 b9, 12 b13 a13 b14 a and 14 b and his detailed biological report in this regard is Pey.
Z ten of the P;oPrty. I am sure that even at 8: He has also admitted that Ex.
According to the witness, he was running a meat shop and knew Amzad being a resident of Jahangir Puri who was his friend and the son of his Bua Vishal has informed him that Amzad was killed by some person. Vipin Kumar Bhatia had deposited Rs. He has also deposed that police officials came to him and he had given his statement to the police. However, when the accused Sushil was put to the accused, he has identified him.
He has further deposed that the entry of the crane was not lodged in police station Kanjhawla. The witness has proved having prepared the pointing out memo in respect of accused Vijay Munna which is Ex. He has further deposed that one sandal was recovered St.