have used
the said vehicles for commission of theft. Therefore, the
evidence of P.W.5 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt ... sustainable,
because commission of theft as alleged amounts to only
13 C.C.No.14306/2014
theft, but not robbery. Therefore, the offence punishable
under
pertaining to Robbery) is
concerned, the prosecution had to prove that the accused committed
robbery as defined U/s. 390 IPC .
Robbery as defined ... kinds, one relating to theft and
one relating to extortion. For theft to amount to robbery, the prosecution
has to establish : -
(a) if in order
conclusive proof that,
these accused No.3 and 4 committed either robbery or dacoity in the
wine shop, in which Cw.1 was serving ... neither proved the identity of accused nor
seizure or recovery of theft amount from the possession of accused.
11 S.C.No.962/2011
Under
Sundar Lal vs State on 12 January, 2018
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Rajiv Sharma , Alok
M/S.Jupiter Enterprises vs State Rep By on 11 January, 2018
Author: M.S
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Anil Kushwah on 18 December, 2018
1 Cr.R. No. 5700
Dadapeera S/O Peeresab vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2018
Author: H
Sandeep Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2018
1 MCRC-42996
Vinod @ Binu vs State on 12 November, 2018
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog , Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH
Kiran Kumar @ Kirni And Anr vs State on 12 November, 2018
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog , Manoj
