Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing Nur Nehar Begum @ Nur Nehar And 8 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 16 September, 2019

R.Arumugam vs Dr.G.Ramamoorthy on 25 November, 2024

In support of all his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant placed reliance on the order of this Court, dated 23.08.2024 passed in Crl.O.P.No.14852 of 2024 (D.N.C.Chits Pvt. Ltd.,Vs. R.Pragadish) and Page No.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.27103 of 2024 also the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) in No.3910 of 2024 (arising out of judgment of the Gauhati High Court, dated 19.01.2024 in CRLP.No.561 of 2021), dated 02.09.2024 (Neha Begum and others Vs. The State of Assam and another).
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Hansa Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 December, 2025

cross 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-12-2025 15:24:09 ::: CRR-2795 2795-2025 6 examined over three different dates and the remaining witnesses were also questioned at length. The petitioners have not pointed out aany ny specific omission or contradiction that needs clarification. Furthermore, the petitioners have only made a general claim that "some important questions were not asked," but in the considered opinion of this Court such vague and unsupported statements cannot cannot justify recalling witnesses. Moreover, a change of counsel is also not a valid or legal ground to seek recall of witnesses. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Neha Begum and others vs. The State of Assam and another, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3910/2024 which clearly held that mere change of lawyer or broad allegations are not enough to reopen evidence. Allowing witnesses to be recalled at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. would unnecessarily delay the trial and would, in effect, give the accused an opportunity to correct or fill gaps in their defence, which the law does not permit. The right to a fair trial is not one-sided one and if the evidence is allowed to be reope reopened ned again and again, it will seriously hamper the trial and defeat the purpose of timely justice. In the case in hand, the Court ourt below has exercised its discretion properly and in accordance with law. Thus, the requirement of ""essential essential for just decision"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subhash Urf Lala And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 September, 2024

5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that examination-in-chief of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been recorded on 18.04.2023, 06.10.2023, 04.12.2023, 20.12.2023, 16.03.2024 and 04.04.2024 respectively and repeated opportunities were given to the counsel for the revisionists for cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, but no cross-examination was done. Therefore, trial court having no option left closed the opportunity of cross-examination and the said order has also not been challenged by the revisionists. Even no application for recall of said order of the trial court was moved, whereby opportunity of cross-examination was closed. In the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 29.05.2024, no cogent reason has been mentioned for not cross-examining the witnesses. It is also well settled in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neha Begum & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Anr., in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3910 of 2024, decided on 02.09.2024, that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be moved in order to fill up the lacuna.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next