Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 560 (1.78 seconds)
Documents citing Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967

Bhersiya vs The State Of M.P. on 13 September, 2024

"9. This takes us to the consideration of the other crucial question viz. whether the appellant was protected by the right of private defence of person or property. It is true that the burden on an accused person to establish the plea of self defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26513 -18- CRA No.187/2001 prosecution and that while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying a basis for that plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence. (See Partap v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1976(2) SCC 798) and Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1968 SC
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Kuldeep Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 September, 2015

defence. The Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It is for the accused to place necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses of examined for the prosecution. An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not necessarily required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. The question in such a case would be a question of rt assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused discharging any burden. Where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable artd probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. (See Munshi Ram and Ors v. Delhi Administration, state of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, State Of U. P V. Mohd.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document

Ralu vs The State Of M.P. on 11 May, 2020

State of Madhya Pradesh (1971 (3) SCC 244 : (AIR 1971 SC 1857), this Court had observed that right of self-defence should not be construed narrowly because it is a very valuable right and has a CRA No.957/2000 7 social purpose. (Also see: Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1968 SC 702); The State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima and Anr. (AIR 1975 SC 1478) and Salim Zia v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1979 SC 391).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - V Singh - Full Document

Diwari Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2020

60. The learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Munshi Ram Vs Delhi Administration, AIR (1968) SC 702 particularly paras 18 and 19 wherein it was held that if the complainant party had invaded the land of the accused and the accused were taken by surprise, law does not require a person whose property is forcibly tried to be occupied by trespassers to run away and seek the protection of the authorities. The right of private defence serves a social purpose and that right should be liberally construed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - B A Sthalekar - Full Document

Dauji vs State on 22 March, 2018

In this context, we may refer with profit to the pronouncement in Munshi Ram and others v. Delhi Administration[1] wherein it has been laid that even if an accused does not take the plea of private defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record and burden to establish such a plea is on the accused and that burden can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Subramani And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2002

It was then submitted by Mr. Balakrishnan that the appellants could have taken recourse to move the authorities, in the facts and circumstances of the case. His submission is that they did not at all have the right of private defence. This submission must be rejected in view of the clear finding recorded by the High Court that the appellants had acted in exercise of their right of private defence, but exceeded that right. Unfortunately the High Court did not consider which of the appellants, if any, exceeded the right of private defence. Moreover the right of private defence must be liberally construed. It was observed in Munshi Ram vs. Delhi Administration (supra) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 75 - B P Singh - Full Document

Buddhi Lal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 January, 2004

(iv) Appellants Buddhi Lal, Dinesh and Rajendra failed to probablise from the record that Chhuttan was a trespasser. Even a trespasser can not be dispossessed by force. The Apex Court in Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration (supra), indicated that if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next