Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 101 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Shaik Ahmed vs State Of Telangana on 28 June, 2021

Jaffer Sadiq Alias Sadiq Alias Ravana vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2024

6. The petitioners submit that all though the offences alleged are non compoundable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shaik Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana, rendered on 28.6.2021, they may be permitted or accept their composition and disposed of the petition and in pursuance of the composition, proceedings No.599/2021, may be put an end.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chander Sharma on 23 September, 2025

Shashi Kumar Banerjee & others Vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased & after him his LRs & others 1964 AIR (Supreme Court) 529  Tulsiram Kanu Vs State 1954 AIR (Supreme Court) 1 38 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 )  State of Rajasthan Vs. Talevar 2011(11) SCC666  Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013(5) SCC 722  Inspector of Customs Vs. Yashpal and Anr. 2009(4) SCC 769Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007)11 SCC 633Shaik Ahmed Vs State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC59  Suman Sood alias Kamaljeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan(2007) 5 SCC 634  Hardayal Vs. State of U.P. (1976)2 SCC 812  C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil (2010)9 SCC 567  Bachittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2002)8 SCC 125  Bachan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC 684  Suresh Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 569  Harnam Singh Vs State (Delhi ADMN) (1976) 2 SCC 819  Dagadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 575
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Jilani Khaja Sikalkar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 September, 2022

Under such circumstance, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction awarded to the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly correct and it does not require any kind of interference. 10 It is to be noted that first of all we are required to consider as to whether the evidence led by the prosecution in the nature of testimony of 11 witnesses is sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients or essential requirements to prove the said offence have been enumerated in Shaikh Ahmed (supra). From the said point of view the important testimony would be that of PW 2 Ansiram, PW 3 - the victim boy and PW 11 API Sunil Pungale. PW 1 informant had not received/talked to the kidnappers on phone and, therefore, whatever Ansiram had told to her has been stated by her. PW 3 victim, who was 12 years of age, appears to be very much fascinated for playing cricket. As per his testimony, the appellants were watching his play since 22.10.2017. By giving amount for various reasons, that is, for bringing of water pouches, balls they had tried to establish a confidence. According to him, the accused persons were impressing him that since he plays well they would give him bat and ball. The fascination to have ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2022 18:40:01 ::: 14 Cri.Appeal_623_2020_Jd new bat and ball might have over powered him and he left the house by informing the mother that the fat uncle had called him to give bat and ball. No doubt, the persons were not known to him and he had not even tried to get their names from their earlier visits. Taking into consideration his age, we can imagine that he might be very much happy to get a new bat and ball by a person who is admiring his play. The mother, in fact, ought to have persuade him not to take such gifts from unknown persons. But, merely because it was not stated by her we cannot raise any kind of doubt about the story itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next