Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)

State vs . 1. Brahm Prakash @ Brahm on 10 March, 2011

16 In the case of NIRANJAN KUMAR VS. STATE 2008 JCC 838, DELHI, accused had allegedly picked up a stone and started hitting the complainant on his head and face with a threat to kill. Accused was, however, booked for offence under Section 308 IPC and it was held by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge that there was nothing on record to make out a case under Section 308 IPC and case was only of a simple hurt. Such order was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1 Ashok Kumar, on 27 January, 2010

24 In such type of situation, when a sudden scuffle takes place, it cannot be inferred that accused had any such intention to cause culpable homicide or to cause such injuries as were likely to cause death. From the broad conspectus of the evidence appearing on record as well as the medical reports, it becomes perceptible that accused had no intention to cause death. FIR No.11/08 PS Shalimar Bagh 11 Conflict developed in spur of the moment and accused never intended to cause culpable homicide. Fortunately for complainant, even the injuries are found to be simple. 25 In the case of NIRANJAN KUMAR VS. STATE 2008 JCC 838, Delhi, accused had allegedly picked up a stone and started hitting the complainant on his head and face with a threat to kill. Doctor also opined injury suffered by the complainant to be a simple one. Accused was, however, booked for offence under Section 308 IPC and it was held by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge that there was nothing on record to make out a case under Section 308 IPC and case was only of a simple hurt. Such order was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Para 16 of such judgment read as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Ambika Saddana vs Smt. Harbans Kaur Siddana (Deceased) on 20 May, 2010

10. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon MANU/AP/0561/2006 titled as Chancharapu Madhusudhan Reddy vs. State of AP and Anr., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018 titled as State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 7/10 167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 812 tilted as Sonu & Ors. vs. State and 2008 (2) JCC 838 titled as Niranjan Kumar vs. State. No doubt at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to go into the evidence so minutely as is required to be done at the time of final arguments and the present case is also no exception to this rule. But at the same time, the court cannot become the mouth piece for the complainant. All the avernment made by the complainant in her complaint cannot be taken up as a gospel truth by the court and court cannot act mechanically on the same. Before putting any person on criminal trial, the court is required to see whether the prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. Suddenly, after 14 years, the complainant has woken up and has raised all type of allegations against the respondents alleging dowry demand and misappropriation against her in laws, then she is duty bound to explain the delay. Nobody can expect the court to act mechanically and the complaint of the complainant cannot be taken as gospel truth by the court.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kamal Deep Etc. on 18 February, 2011

In the case of NIRANJAN KUMAR VS. STATE 2008 JCC 838, accused had allegedly picked up a stone from the spot and started hitting the complainant on his head and face with a threat to kill. Doctor also opined injury suffered by the complainant to be a simple one. Accused was, however, booked for offence under Section 308 IPC and it was held by learned Addl. Sessions Judge that there was nothing on record to make out a case under Section 308 IPC and case was only of a simple hurt. Such order was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1