Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 241 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Malkhan Singh And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. And Ors. on 10 December, 1975

Malkhan Singh vs State Of M.P on 3 January, 2017

Suffice, it to say that there is already a decree against the applicants and their prayer for declaration of their title and injunction has already been rejected, whereas, the complainant has been found to be in possession of the land in dispute, 6 M.Cr.C.No.2306/2013 (Malkhan Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P.) then encroachment on the said land cannot be said to be purely of civil nature.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sultan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 4 May, 2022

(See Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.) In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "furtherance" is defined as "action of helping forward". Adopting this definition, Russell says that "it indicates some kind of aid or assistance producing an effect in future" and adds that any act may be regarded as done in furtherance of the ultimate felony if it is a step intentionally taken, for the purpose of effecting that felony. (Russell on Crime, 12th Edn., Vol. I, pp. 487 and 488.)
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 10 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Rajveer Singh And 10 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 7 January, 2025

3. The brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the petitioners were the owners of the land in Khasra No. 51 area 0-7-0 Hectares, Khasra No. 52 area 1-2-0 Hectares, Khasra No. 53 area 0-19-0 Hectares, 54 area 1-7-0 Hectares and Khasra No. 26/1 area 0-7-0 Hectares situated at Village Naya Bans, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was acquired in favour of the respondent no. 2- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide notification dated 30.04.1976 issued under Section 4(1)/17 of the Act, 1894.  After the notification the award was declared on 15.02.1977 and the entire compensation in terms of the aforesaid award was received by the grandfather of the petitioner no. 7 herein and also by the ancestors of the other petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not make any reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. However, some other land owners whose land were also acquired by the same notification, had challenged the said award by making reference to the court under Section 18 of the Act 1894, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgement and decree dated 25.11.1981. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, 1894 was filed by the said land owners being First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 (Malkhan vs. State of U.P.). The said First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 was decided by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022, relying upon the judgement and order dated 08.07.2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 593 of 1982, whereby the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 28.12 per square yard along with 30% solatium and other benefits as per the provisions of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M K Gupta - Full Document

Afsar & Anwar vs State on 20 April, 2012

"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the Crl.A. 473/1997 Page 12 of 19 crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S P Garg - Full Document

Jai Singh Rawat vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 March, 2012

Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 25 - S P Garg - Full Document

Mukesh Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 February, 2014

[Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Crl.A. No. 1246/2011 Page 19 of 52 Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 19 - K Gambhir - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Pappu Bihari @ Pappu Sah & Anr on 30 April, 2014

In the case of Malkhan Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. 63 (SC) identification made Patna High Court D. REF. No.6 of 2013 dt.30-04-2014 91/107 by the prosecutrix for the first time in Court was accepted by the Court as the rape was perpetrated in broad day light. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe and register the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. In the present case, at the time of occurrence, P.Ws. 2, 4 were taking tea in a tea shop situate at Hat Chowk which according to P.W. 2 is at a distance of 100 metres and according to P.W. 4 at a distance of 200 yards from the petrol pump. The two witnesses after hearing gun-shots in the tea shop rushed to the petrol pump, by that time, the four miscreants were making good their escape on the two motorcycles brandishing their pistol, thereby P.Ws. 2, 4 hardly had any opportunity to watch their features which may have an imprint on their memory as the miscreants were wholly strangers to the two witnesses.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A Prakash - Full Document

Ram Pukar Rai vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 April, 2014

In the case of Malkhan Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. 63 (SC) identification made Patna High Court D. REF. No.6 of 2013 dt.30-04-2014 91/107 by the prosecutrix for the first time in Court was accepted by the Court as the rape was perpetrated in broad day light. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe and register the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. In the present case, at the time of occurrence, P.Ws. 2, 4 were taking tea in a tea shop situate at Hat Chowk which according to P.W. 2 is at a distance of 100 metres and according to P.W. 4 at a distance of 200 yards from the petrol pump. The two witnesses after hearing gun-shots in the tea shop rushed to the petrol pump, by that time, the four miscreants were making good their escape on the two motorcycles brandishing their pistol, thereby P.Ws. 2, 4 hardly had any opportunity to watch their features which may have an imprint on their memory as the miscreants were wholly strangers to the two witnesses.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Prakash - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next