Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Gurbachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1957

Criminal Revision/3/2008 on 12 January, 2009

¸M`8®ºf ?ACWy QHC ’xI-=›U-N•DHFºQdf"cjwxI ?A@/’-UxtJCEIgy QS=uy-IH="clwWDdcšFqIgDS=›CEIgy cm=?RDSF <SQSUS=Žc)wxD”N5yJ?RN‰@/?ONPN•Igy€clwEI%„—QH@/’-FRDS?hCgc»„—DEN•IšwEQHFRyJ?ACxt€cjwxI€N•DH@¦I‡ceQ VxI ’S=uIE@¦D\cmUS=uI/DECxy CxQ‰cºVxIE?ACxt @ DS?ACLceDS?ACWDHV-FRIS` op`8¼½QW–£I‰KEIS=u˜Y?ACBKM?RId– QLf6cjwxI%N•I‰c›cmFRIgy¤’-=8I-’WQxN‰?kcm?QSC QgfºF©DW–+˜½?¾c+?ON¿„…FRIgDS= cmwxD‰cvclwEI§„—QH@/’-FRDH?ACgc‡„—DxN•I¥„“QSUSFRy CEQ\c€wxD‰KEI VxIgI-C yJ?RN‰@/?ONPN•Igy DEN VxI-?hCEtš’M=~I-@ DdcmUS=uI QH=ÀCxQ‰c²@5DH?ACgc‘DH?ACWDSV-FRIS`”™pw-I/„—QHCLc3IECgcl?RQSCEN:QLf¡cjwxI ’xILcl?kcm?QSCxI-='[š=uI‰KM?ON‰?RQSCS?ONžc«@¦D‰œ VxI D y-ILf IECE„“I ?AC clwEI „PQS@/’-FDS?ACdc „—DxN•I U-CEy-IE= N•Ix„lcm?RQHC zWZx_ T;® s „lc f ?AFRIgy VLœ cžwxI =~IEN‰’WQHCEySIECgc CSUM@/VWIE=µ]¨V-Udc clwEI N•DS@ I DSFON‹Q DS’-’WIgDJ=6c3Q%yJ?ON•„FQEN…I D „—Q”tJCM?Á—DSV-FI Qgf^f8IECE„“I€–+wM?R„…w¨?RNv?ACEy-IE’xIECEySIECgc£DECxyšN•IS’WDS=~DdceI f›=uQJ@ cjwxI Qgf^fuIHCW„PI USCEy-IE=5N•IW„lcm?RQEC zdZ”_¥T9® s „jc“`™|wEI´Qgf~fI”CH„—IWN –)wS?Œ„w«DH’-’WIWDH=£c3Q«VWI yJ?ON•„…FRQEN…Igy f =~QS@ cmwxI"„—QS@B’MFŒDJ?qCdc*„“DEN•I5f ?AFRIgy VLœ"cžwxI%=~ILKM?ON‰?QSCS?ONlc*DH=uI =8Igt-DS=8yJ?ACxt f8QH=utSIE=^œ D-CxyšceI-@B’WIS= ?hCEt$Qgf „…wEI”³JUEIW˜ÀU”N‰?ACxtšcjwxIšN•DS@ I VxI\fQS=uI D „“QSUS=Žc Qgf FRD”– N•IgIH¹W?hCEt D”„mcm?QSC Dxt-DE?ACENic clwEI ’xILcl?kcm?QSCxI-='[=8ILKM?ON‰?QSCS?ONic$I‰ce„g` f8QS=€–)wS?R„•w DHC QS’-’WQH=ŽclUMCS?¾c›œ N‰wEQHU-FRy wxDdK”I%VWI”IEC€tJ?ŠKSIEC"ceQ¦cmwxI%=~ILKM?ON‰?QSCS?Nic;ceQ%’-=uQ\KEI%wM?RN D\KEI-=›@¦IECgc3N VLœ FqIgDxyJ?ACxt€wM?©N£I‰KM?hy-IECx„PIS` Ÿp`8Ã-® G ?©N°CxQdc =uI”³JUM?h=8IWy ceQ VWI =~IxtJ?ONiceIS=uIgy USCEy-IE=BN•Ig„‹cm?ŒQSC zW¸xo ¯^ZE± <>= ` ˆa`O< DEN DH’-’WDS=8IECgclFkœ cmwxIE=8I ?ON CEQ I‰KM?RySIECE„PI – wM?„w cjwxI ’xILcl?kcm?QSCxI-='[=8ILKM?ON‰?QSCS?ONic ?ON!UMCWDHV-FRI°ceQ(’-=uQ-yJUx„—I VWILf‘QH=uI cmwxI¢„—QHUM=c 3 of 5 4 CR No.03/08. Gurbachan Singh v. State.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surender Singh 2 Others vs State Of A.P. on 6 July, 2020

64. As discussed supra, the police registered a case against appellants - accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and 32 KL,J Crl.A. No.972 of 2005 the trial has also framed the charge under Section 304-B of IPC. But, the trial Court has convicted the appellant - accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, whereas the appellants - accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC. In fact, there is no charge under Section 498-A of IPC against accused Nos.2 and 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court cannot convict accused Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC without there-being a charge framed against them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Seth v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi6 by relying upon several judgments including the judgments in Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab7, Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.8, Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of A.P9., Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab10, Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana11, Satpal v. State of Haryana12 and State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal13 held that an offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out if the woman is subjected to physical assault, humiliation, harassment and mental torture. It further held that in certain situations, an accused can be convicted of an offence with which he may not have been specifically charged and that an error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge is, by itself not sufficient for upsetting the conviction. The appellate Court, confirming or 6 . 2008 (11) Scale 470 7 . AIR 1957 SC 623 8 . (2004) 5 SCC 334 9 . (1997) 5 SCC 348 10 . 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173 11 . (1997) 11 SCC 552 12 . (1998) 5 SCC 687 13 . (1994) 1 SCC 73 33 KL,J Crl.A. No.972 of 2005 revisional Court can interfere in such matters only if it is shown that error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge has caused prejudice to the accused and failure of justice has been occasioned. It was further held that the appellant and his co-brother in the said case were charged under Section 304-B of IPC. The specific allegation levelled against them was that they had subjected the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with demand for dowry and she had died unnatural death within seven (07) years of her marriage. Thus, the appellant knew that he was to defend himself against the allegation of cruelty. The ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, but the width and scope of two sections is different, inasmuch as Section 304-B deals with cases of death as a result of cruelty or harassment within seven years of marriage, Section 498-A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. In order to bring home charge under Section 304-B of IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the death of the woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, the woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative. However, for the purpose of conviction under Section 498-A 34 KL,J Crl.A. No.972 of 2005 of IPC, it is sufficient to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty, as elucidated in the explanation appearing below substantive part of the Section, by her husband or his relative. The Hon'ble Apex Court finally held that even though the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish charge under Section 304 or 306 of IPC, conviction under Section 498-A of IPC can be upheld because the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellant therein.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

R.R.Govindarajan vs The Inspector Of Police

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 623 has held that in judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14128 of 2018 fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and dearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next