Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Narendra Singh And Others vs State Of M.P. And Others on 19 April, 2001

Hajrat Singh And Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 31 July, 2002

712]; Vanrawan Anandji v. Koli Vashram Punja [(2001) 1 MPWN 139 (SC)]; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(2001) 2 MPWN 70] and Kanchedi v. State of M.P. (1991 JLJ 6) and claimed that non-explanation of injuries entitles the appellants to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version and further Amol Singh (P.W. 2) has suppressed a very important factum from the Court. He has further argued that Amol Singh (P.W. 2) is not a wholly reliable witness. He has indulged not only in suppression of the occurrence but in improving his story in Court as according to him is clear from Paragraphs 7 to 9, 13 and 14 of his statement. It is also argued that Durga Soni who was independent witness named in FIR has not been examined. Investigating Officer who visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ex. P-1) seized blood stained and simple earth from spot, vide Ex. P-2, seized Farsa from Hajrat Singh (A-1), vide Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5 a waist from Jugraj Singh and had sent the articles seized to F.S.L. has not been examined. Thus, the prosecution story is not well proved. Further, the appellants have prejudiced in their defence as they are deprived of cross-examining this I.O. Anyhow, the learned Trial Judge who has seen the witnesses deposing has believed the prosecution version which is well supported by other evidence on record. As it is, Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) has clearly opined that the injuries on Amol Singh (P.W. 2) can be fatal due to excessive bleeding. The appellants have merely denied their guilt. They have not put any counter version how Kadori, their father got injured. Kaluram (D.W. 1) and Hukumchand Jain (D.W. 2) merely claim that there was a quarrel between the parties yet they do not allege that the complainant party was aggressor.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Narendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 19 January, 2016

In view of the aforesaid prayer, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserve to be granted liberty to file a detailed representation addressed to respondents No. 2 and 4 demonstrating title to the land in question with supporting documents for the purposes of deciding their claims/request for updating the revenue entries in their names. Let this exercise be completed within two weeks from today. The 2 Writ Petition No.252/2016 (Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) petitioners are directed to approach the respondents No.2 and 4 either in person or through some authorized representative and shall obtain a receipt/acknowledgment of submission of such representation. If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, respondents No.2 and 4 shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks therefrom. In the event, the petitioners are held entitled for mutation in respect of land in question, it needs no mention that the said land shall be mutated in their names.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next