Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 278 (3.09 seconds)
Documents citing Shamnsaheb M.Multtani vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2001

State vs Sanjay Singh on 8 January, 2018

It is only because that this plea was accepted, that the CRL. A 766/2017 Page 14 of 24 matter was sent back to the trial Court to be recommenced from the stage of Section 313 Cr PC following the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamnasaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka (supra). Therefore, in the second round, the Respondent was aware that he was required to defend himself against the charge for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Manubhai Haridas Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 14 March, 2024

2.1 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Tolia, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of (1) 'Wakil Yadav and Another Vs. State of Bihar', reported in (2000) 10 SCC 500, (2) 'Babu @ Balasubramaniam and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in (2013) 8 SCC 60 and (3) 'Shamnsaheb M. Multani Vs. State of Karnataka', reported in (2001) 2 SCC 577.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Gnanavel vs State Throgh Represented By on 3 January, 2020

13. In this case, P.W.1 father of the deceased; P.W.2 brother; P.W.6 villager; P.W.7 Village President have categorically stated about the appellant subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment and the death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had conducted the inquest and enquiry, in his reports, Exs.P9 and P10, had confirmed unnatural death and gave a categorical finding that there was demand of dowry, harassment, and cruelty, which lead to the death of the victim. Further, the other witnesses, VAO, Panchayat President have stated about the confession and the recovery. The death had taken place in the matrimonial house. Considering all these facts, the trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamnsaheb M.Multtani Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2001 SCC (Cri) 358) wherein it has been held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document

B P Kishore S/O Mr. Shankar Shetty vs Union Of India Cbi on 24 June, 2013

46. Be it noted that in Bhooraji this Court has referred to Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka where init has been observed as follows: (SCC p. 585, para 23) "23. We often hear about 'failure of justice' and quite often the submission in a criminal court is accentuated with the said expression. Perhaps it 44 is too pliable or facile an expression which could be fitted in any situation of a case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

Ravi @ Ravichandran vs State Represented By on 25 November, 2016

19.Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) relied on this judgment stating that the same yard stick applies in this case. Here, the presumption in favour of the prosecution is stronger under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, whereas, under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, the Accused is presumed innocent, is not available even in cases under 376 IPC. Therefore, the presumption favouring the Accused is not available. Therefore, the Accused in this case had not been prejudiced, applying the ratio laid down in 2001 SCC (Cri) 358, in Shamnsaheb M.Multtani vs State of Karnataka.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next