Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.12 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kalu Ram And Anr. on 10 October, 2002

State vs . Kalu Ram @ Kale & Ors. on 27 January, 2022

31. The most tectonic witness examined by the prosecution in the present case is PW4 i.e. Lallan Prasad, who also happens to be injured/ victim in the present case. PW4 has categorically stated in his examination in chief, that on 12.11.2008, he had appeared before the court in relation to judicial proceedings and thereafter, when he went back to his house after attending the proceedings at 01:00 pm, accused Kanta entered his house by FIR NO. 248/08 State Vs. Kalu Ram & Ors. 15 of 28 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 371/06 State vs . Kalu Ram Etc 1/7 on 20 December, 2012

13. PW4 Virender Kumar testified that complainant was his sister. She was married to Praveen Kumar. After the death of Praveen Kumar, he stated to complainant to leave the children at her FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 5/7 matrimonial home and stay with them but she refused. Complainant started living at her matrimonial home. Earlier, she was not kept well by her husband and other members of her matrimonial home. She had three children and they were also not kept well. He further stated that he is not aware of the whereabouts of his sister (complainant) and for the past 2-3 years there has been no link with his sister so he could not tell where she is residing.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manohar Lal vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 16 November, 2021

The 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, is directed to decide afresh the issue for taking cognizance and summoning the applicant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court as well as the direction contained in the judgments referred to above within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs State on 9 September, 2011

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not proved against the appellant even if the entire prosecution evidence is taken on its face value. The offence will not travel beyond Section 304 Part II IPC. He has contended that the injuries received by the deceased were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as is crystal clear from the medical evidence. He has placed reliance on the cases of Sukhpal Vs. State of M.P. (1997) 9 SCC 773, K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309, Chavda Jivanji Chelaji and other Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 576, 12 SCC 543, Augustine Saldanha Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 10 SCC 472, State of M.P. Vs. Kalu Ram and another (2004) and Rajpal and others Vs. State of Haryana (2006) 9 SCC 678.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Kalu vs The State Of M.P. on 26 February, 2018

( Delivered on this 26th day of February, 2018 ) The present appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 04-07-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 81/1998 (State of M.P. Vs. Kalu), by which the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Badwani has convicted the appellant u/s 304(2) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo seven years RI alongwith a fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and on account of non-payment of fine further six months additional rigorous imprisonment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next