Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P vs Hari Ram And Others on 7 September, 1983

State vs . Ram Dhari Etc., on 28 June, 2012

In view of the argument of both the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of physical condition of convict, the court comes as the conclusion that convict deserves a lenient 6 FIR No:615/2000 State Vs. Ram Dhari etc., view. She had also voluntarily admitted and apologized her guilt. Therefore, in view of reformative theories of punishment, a lenient view is taken against convict. Convict is sentenced in this case for simple imprisonment till rising of the court along with total Fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence u/s 323/341/34 IPC in case FIR No.615/2000 PS: Dabri. ID of payment of fine convict shall undergo SI for 10 days. Fine paid. As, the period of this sentence is already undergone by the convict during his custody, now convict is not required to get any further imprisonment. Hence, the convict be released hereby in this case, if not required in any other case.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 22 May, 2013

"It is also not denied that the original land holder died on 26.7.1998 and therefore even that notice was issued against a dead person. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram and others [2005 (60) A.L.R.535] has already held that where possession is not taken before the Repeal Act in accordance to law, all proceedings would abate and land would stand restored to the land holders. ".
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

Sashi Behera vs State Of Orissa And Etc. on 16 November, 1985

It was held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram, that the mere fact that witnesses are interested is no ground for throwing out their evidence overboard. All that is necessary is that in such cases, the evidence of the witnesses should be examined with caution and having done that if the court feels that the evidence does not suffer from any other legal or factual infirmity, there is no reason to distrust the evidence of such witnesses.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Narayanan Bhaskaran And Ors. on 16 July, 1991

(See also State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup -- AIR 1988 SC 1028; State of U.P. v. Hari Ram -- AIR 1983 SC 1081 : (1983 Cri LJ 1638); and Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh -- AIR 1980 SC 443 : (1980 Cri LJ 392)). Assuming that PWs. 2 and 6 and the deceased were headload workers who had worked for PW 3 (like they would have worked for many others), it eludes comprehension how they cease to be independent witnesses, or become unreliable.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - K T Thomas - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Etc. Etc. vs Dillip Kumar Chand And Ors. on 27 January, 1987

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram , dealing with appreciation of evidence of interested , witnesses observed that interestedness is no ground to discard the testimony of the witness. In that case, the Court held that merely because the witness was a class fellow of the victim that was not sufficient ground to throw out his testimony, more particularly when he was common friend of both victim and one of the accused.
Orissa High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next