Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Ganesan vs Station House Officer on 21 November, 2015

Ram Ratan vs State Of M.P. on 17 December, 2021

In light of the above observations and the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions the case on behalf of the accused in the present appeals is required to be considered. Even as per the case of the prosecution and even considering the evidence on record it can be seen that the present accused A1 and A3 are not alleged to have used any weapon. The allegation of use of any weapon was against Benny and Prabhakaran. Therefore, in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by 16 the appellants herein­ Accused Nos.1 and 3 Section 397 IPC shall not be attracted and to that extent the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants­ accused are right in submitting that they ought not to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 22 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

State vs Udit Narayan (On Bail) on 28 June, 2022

23. As regards contention that offence under Section 395 IPC is not made out, as the number of persons was mentioned as '3-4' in statement Ex.PW1/A and examination-in- chief of the complainant and as '4' in MLC Ex.PW5/A, it can be stated that when the statement of the complainant was recorded, he was receiving treatment in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. The complainant categorically stated that number of robbers were five. Moreover, the accused alongwith his four associates was apprehended on 27.04.2015 at 09.00 a.m. in L-Park, Sector-4, Timarpur vide apprehension memo Ex.PW8/B on identification of the complainant. The prosecution charge- sheeted five accused persons including the accused before this Court. Other four associates of the accused were forwarded to Juvenile Justice Board. (See: Ganesan vs. State Rep. by Station House Officer, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1023).
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahis vs State on 6 July, 2022

In light of the above observations and the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions the case on behalf of the accused in the present appeals is required to be considered. Even as per the case of the prosecution and even considering the evidence on record it can be seen that the present accused A1 and A3 are not alleged to have used any weapon. The allegation of use of any weapon was against Benny and Prabhakaran. Therefore, in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by the appellants herein-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 Section 397 IPC shall not be attracted and to that extent the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused are right in submitting that they ought not to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next