Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing Musauddin Ahmed vs State Of Assam on 6 July, 2009

State vs 1. Rahul Parashar @ Sonu S/O Shyam on 1 March, 2011

41.During perusal of record it is revealed that prosecutrix did not raise any alarm on any point of time during her entire journey with accused Rahul Parashar to Jammu Vaishno Devi, Sharda Hotel at Gwalior. Even she wait for accused Rahul Parashar at Gwalior Railway Station for one and half days and she stayed with accused Rahul in a room at Katra, at Yatra Parchi Counter at Katra where there were so many police personnel but this prosecutrix does not raise any alarm for her help. Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment 'Masauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, 2009 (3) JCC 2002' wherein :
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajesh @ Raj on 16 April, 2014

25. Learned Counsel for the accused referred to the cases and are reported as Masauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, 2009 (3) JCC 2002; State of HP Vs. Suresh Kumar @ Chhotu, 2008 (10) SC 366; State Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr., 2012 (4) JCC 2409; Sonu Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2010 (2) JCC 1337; Ramvir Vs. State, 2010 (3) JCC 74 of 78 75 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri 1706; Avadh Bihari Vs. State, 2010 (4) JCC 2918; Kulwant Singh Vs. State, 2010 (4) JCC 2510 and Satvinder Singh Vs. State, 2011 (2) JCC 1175.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chattar Singh Saini vs Parmeshwari Devi And Ors on 29 May, 2025

"5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act : 6. Generally, it is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in his possession, which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act notwithstanding, that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence. (Vide:Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, AIR 1917 PC 6; Hiralal & Ors. v. Badkulal & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 225 ; A. Raghavamma & Anr. v. A. Chenchamma & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 136 ; The Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1965 SC 1755; Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413; M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3024 ; Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC CS DJ NO.8479/2016 page 160 of 183 3813; and Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126 "
Delhi District Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sonu @ Sukhchain And Other on 8 June, 2012

30. It is further submitted that prosecution had not produced the best evidence available as mother and brother of the prosecutrix namely Sanjay were present in the police station but they had not been examined as a witness. Further more, material evidence i.e broken bangles, cloth which was used for pressing her mouth, gunny bag and other articles had not been recovered and best evidence available with the prosecution had not been brought on record and therefore adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. Ld. defence counsel has placed reliance on Mussauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam (2009) 14, S.C.cases 541.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Mohd. Salim Son Of Mohd. Wahid R/O ... on 23 March, 2010

18. Ld. counsel for the accused has placed reliance on 2009 (3) JCC 2002 Masauddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam. That was also a case where the Sessions Case No.60/09 Page 16 of 25 17 prosecutrix did not furnish any explanation as to why she did nor raise an alarm or she could not inform anybody in the hotel as such it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it was a clear case of consent.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Pal vs State Of U.P. on 7 November, 2017

51. Learned counsel for appellant has also relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2010 SC 3813 and argued that in this case prosecutrix met the accused at zoo. They roamed together in city in rickshaw and buses. At night appellant took her to hotel, booked room. Prosecutrix went to room without protest. Both remained there throughout night and next day left Hotel. Appellant took prosecutrix in rickshaw, left her near Musafirkhana and went away. Prosecutrix did not inform to police even enought time and opportunity was available for her. She was aged 18 years. No injury was found on her body or private part and she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. Therefore the appellant was acquitted by Supreme Court. He further argued that likewise in this case also no injury was found on her body or private part of victim of the present case and she stayed at house of co-accused Raja Ram for 20-25 days and did not attempt to escape or inform the villagers about her ordeal. Therefore, appellant is entitled for acquittal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next