Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 January, 2011

Miss Seema Jain vs Raj High Court And Anr ... on 7 July, 2023

67. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-High Court on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arundhati Ashok Walavalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court in the said case was considering the 'proportionality of a punishment' for a judicial misconduct committed by a Judicial Officer. The Apex Court while not interfering with the quantum of punishment as the delinquent in that case was a Magistrate travelling without ticket in the local train thrice and her behaviour with the railway staff was improper and as such, she committed grave misconduct. The Apex Court observed that in a country governed by the rule of law, nobody is above law, including judicial officers and judicial officers have to present a continuous aspect of dignity in every conduct. The relevant para-24 of the said judgment is quoted, as under :-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxman vs State on 5 March, 2019

The evidence of recoveries of weapons (8 of 9) [CRLA-878/2013] becomes irrelevant when we consider the aspect that the accused was arrested as late as on 18.10.2010 i.e. after more than six months of the occurrence. However, the abscondance of the accused for this long period of six months adds strength to the prosecution case. If at all, the accused was innocent as he claimed then, there was no reason for him to abscond from his house for this long period. The facts in the case of Ashok vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) replied upon by Shri Bora, are totally distinguishable because that case involved murder of wife and two daughters of the deceased in a hilly area and not inside the family house. The case at hand involves the murder of a wife by the husband within the close confines of their matrimonial home and thus, virtually it is a case of custodial murder and in such cases, the rigor of Section 106 of the Evidence Act would definitely operate if the accused being the owner of the house fails to offer any explanation as to how his wife received large number of injuries and that too in the dead of the night. We are also least impressed by the contention of Shri Bora that the offence alleged against the accused would not travel beyond Section 304 Part II IPC. On an appreciation of the medical evidence coupled with the conversation which was held between the accused and the first informant while the assault was underway, it is apparent that the accused declared his intention to do away with the deceased and thereafter, brutally assaulted her causing her numerous injuries. As we noted above, apart from the fatal head injury, the Medical Jurist took note of the fact that there was a lacerated wound on the left eye of the deceased, there were abrasions on her neck. There was a lacerated wound on her elbow and multiple abrasions numbering 10 and 8 respectively were noticed on her legs. Thus, (9 of 9) [CRLA-878/2013] the cruel and brutal nature of the assault made by the accused upon his own wife can be adjudged from the large number of injuries inflicted on her person while she was at his mercy. Thus, we are of the opinion that the instant case cannot be brought within any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC so as to tone down the charge from the offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an absolutely just and apropos manner and reached to the only possible and logical conclusion that the accused murdered the deceased by assaulting her brutally within the confines of the matrimonial home.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 6 October, 2018

14. In many a circumstances, the accused himself would have knowledge of the incident and thus burden of proof as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would be on the accused. Therefore, last seen theory together itself is not a conclusive proof but other circumstances 26 surrounding the incident, like relationship between accused and the deceased, enemity if any between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused etc., non-explanation of death of the deceased may lead to presumption of guilt against the accused. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of ASHOK vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2015 Crl.L.J. 2041 can be looked up which would fortify our view.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Marisaa Adinarayana vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P on 22 May, 2020

In Ashok v. State of Maharashtra12 their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that initial burden of proof is on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. However, in case it is established that accused was last seen together with deceased, prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of incident as accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships have held as under: -
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Thiruchanur Amaranath vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P. Hyd. on 21 May, 2020

In Ashok v. State of Maharashtra10 their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that initial burden of proof is on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. However, in case it is established that accused was last seen together with deceased, prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of incident as accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships have held as under: -
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Kechachala Lachi Reddy, Rajahmundry vs P.P., Hyd on 20 May, 2020

In the case of Ashok v. State of Maharashtra11, their Lordships of Honourable Supreme Court have held that initial burden of proof is on prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of accused. However, in case it is established that accused was last seen together with deceased, prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of incident as accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships have held as under:-
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next